Hi, thanks a lot for answer, looks then even better! so to be 100% sure it good to traverse whole path and open directory content. One remark, since I did not mentioned it, I'm using NFSv3, is this behavior same in NFSv3 and NFSv4? thanks & regards Lukasz Tasz Łukasz Tasz 2012/11/29 Myklebust, Trond <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-nfs- >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukasz Tasz >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:41 AM >> To: Adrien Kunysz >> Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: nfs performance - idea. >> >> Any idea on this topic? >> >> Can I assume that "touch" could be interface for triggering synchronising >> client state with server state? >> > > 'ls' is better. All opendir() calls will trigger a revalidation of the directory cache. > > >> 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 -- 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
