On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > I like that name... Just set it up as an alias for 'async' in /etc/exports and add nagware to exportfs. Trond -- 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
