On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 09:48 -0400, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:15:35PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > I'm open to other suggestions, but I'm having trouble finding one that > > can scale correctly (i.e. not require per-client tracking), prevent > > silent corruption (by causing clients to miss errors), while not > > relying on optional features that may not be implemented by all NFSv3 > > clients (e.g. per-file write verifiers are not implemented by *BSD). > > > > That said, it seems to me that to do nothing should not be an option, > > as that would imply tolerating silent corruption of file data. > > So should we increment the boot verifier every time we discover an error > on an asynchronous write? > I think so. Otherwise, only one client will ever see that error. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
