Any idea on this topic? Can I assume that "touch" could be interface for triggering synchronising client state with server state? many thanks for help! regards Lukasz Tasz 2012/11/14 Adrien Kunysz <adk@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Łukasz Tasz <lukasz@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to consult some idea with you, >> >> Problem: >> I have two processes which are doing some actions and one of the >> action is done on a shared file system. >> Issue is that this thing could be done only by one process, and for >> this issue, locking mechanism is implemented. >> Problem is that while one process is releasing lock, second one is >> informed that file processing is finished, but unfortunately files >> does not exists in context of second process. >> Two processes are executed on two different hosts. NFS share is >> mounted in a standard way, no special flag. >> Problem I guess is with caches, lookupcache=none solves the problem, >> but also causes others :) - performance. >> >> I know, it not possible to have all things at once - no complains. >> But simple idea is that inside second process after notification that >> files are generated execute touch function on directory which holds >> files, >> This will cause unnecessary update of modification date, but as a side >> effect I noticed that also file gets visible immediately on client >> hosts. >> >> That's why my question is if this is expected and reasonable behaviour? >> At the end I'm looking for kind of 'sync' command which will cause >> synchronization of directories content inside client and server >> something like flush() - but in NFS it's more complex. > > Doesn't fsync(2) do what you want? If not, can you explain why? > >> thanks in advance for help, >> >> regards >> Lukasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
