> On Aug 28, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. +1 I'm not familiar with the details of how the Linux NFS server implements the boot verifier: Will a verifier bump be effective for all file systems that server exports? If so, is that an acceptable cost? -- Chuck Lever
