On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:04:07PM -0700, lyndat3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi > > > > Yes. This is a common source of confusion. In retrospect maybe the > > > export sync/async option should have had a different name from the > > > client mount option.--b. > > > > > > > Do we still need a server 'async' export option? Who is still using > > NFSv2 for any type of performance-critical work? > > > Just to be clear -- MY pebkac was that I'd set the CLIENT mount as 'sync' -- based on the misunderstanding that write integrity required it 'everywhere' -- on the export AND the mount -- and that 'async' was potentially unsafe. > > The server was always exporting 'sync'. Yeah, understood, I just meant that if we'd originally named that export option, I don't know, "trash_me_on_reboot", then you wouldn't have gotten the "don't use async, it's unsafe" idea, and wouldn't have gotten into this mess. But, too late to do anything about that, I guess. --b. -- 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
