2012/11/29 Myklebust, Trond <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Łukasz Tasz [mailto:lukasz@xxxxxxx] >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:00 AM >> To: Myklebust, Trond >> Cc: Adrien Kunysz; linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: nfs performance - idea. >> >> 2012/11/29 Myklebust, Trond <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Łukasz Tasz [mailto:lukasz@xxxxxxx] >> >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:47 AM >> >> To: Myklebust, Trond >> >> Cc: Adrien Kunysz; linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> Subject: Re: nfs performance - idea. >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > No. All you really need is the opendir(). If you want to make your own >> > hack, all you need is a program that does something along the lines of >> > >> > DIR* p = opendir("."); >> > if (p) >> > closedir(p); >> > >> I think I got what you mean, but in case of ./a/b/c/d/e just >> opendir('./a/b/c/d/e') could end with "No such file or directory" >> >> that's why I'm thinking about: >> for d in "./a/b/c/d/e".split('/') >> opendir(d) >> >> >> >> One remark, since I did not mentioned it, I'm using NFSv3, is this >> >> behavior same in NFSv3 and NFSv4? >> > >> > Yes. It is a consequence of the NFS close-to-open caching model, which is >> common to all versions of NFS. >> great, >> could you please point me to document/manual which describe this model? >> > > http://nfs.sourceforge.net/#faq_a8 again, many thanks! > >> thanks a lot for your help! >> Łukasz >> >> > >> >> 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
