Hi Ben, On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a customer that would like the client to use DATA_SYNC instead of > FILE_SYNC when writing a file with O_DSYNC. It looks like the client will > only use FILE_SYNC since: > > 87ed5eb44ad9338b1617 NFS: Don't use DATA_SYNC writes > http://marc.info/?l=git-commits-head&m=131180398113265&w=2 > > I've been unable to dig up any other discussion on this, so I think it > has just been an overlooked point until now. I'm only starting to > figure out what would need to change for this, and I thought that while > I do that I'd ask the list if anyone thinks that serious implementation > issues might emerge if this were attempted. I'm not aware of any servers that make a real distinction between FILE_SYNC and DATA_SYNC. Has anybody done any performance measurements to show that it is worth the effort? Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
