On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 11:00:40AM +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote: > We are using the sync mount option, because the XFS instances that we > have are exposed via nfsd. Without the "sync" mount option, data from > NFS write command would end up sitting in page cache, and the nfs > client would not know when it has been finally persisted on disk. > Is the any other way that you can recommend to provide data integrity > guarantee for nfs clients? Even if it requires some development, like > placing the data in a short-term persistent space, this is something > we will look at. You don't need any mount option for NFS exports. Only NFSv2 requires symchronous writes, while NFS3+ have the concept of unstable writes that the client needs to explicitly committ using the COMMIT on the write operation. Both the NFSv2 synchronous and the NFSv3+ unstable semantics are managed by NFSD. (I'll speak here as a XFS and NFSD developer, and someone involved in NFS protocol development, just in case you're doubting) > > Thanks, > Alex. ---end quoted text--- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
