> > On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:16 PM, msl wrote: > > > Hello all, > > I think the two options are very similar in the > "cliente side > > view", but i want to hear from the experts... So, > somebody can talk > > a little about the two options? > > We have two different layers here, i think: > > 1) The "async" from the protocol stack, and the > other... > > 2) From the filesystem point of view. > > > > What makes me think that the "first" option could > be more "quick" > > for the client, because the "ack" is in a higher > level (NFS protocol). > > The NFS client has control over WRITE requests in > that it > may ask to have them done "async" and then follow it > with > a COMMIT request to ensure the data is in > stable-storage/disk. Great information... so, the "sync" option on the server (export) side is just a "possible" option for the client requests? I mean, the "sync/async" option is a requirement in a nfs write request operation? When i did the question, i was talking about the "server side", i did not know about the possibility of the client requests "sync/async". > > However, the NFS client has no control over namespace > operations > (file/directory create/remove/rename). These must be > done > synchronously -- no way for the client to direct the > operational > behavior of the server in these cases. If i understand well, here the "zil_disable" is is a problem for the NFS semantics... i mean, the service will be compromise, because the nfs client can't control the "namespace operations". What is a big diff in my initial question. > > Spencer > Thanks a lot for your comments! Anybody else? ps.: how can i enable async in nfs server on solaris? just add "async" for the export options?
Leal. > _______________________________________________ > nfs-discuss mailing list > nfs-discuss at opensolaris.org This message posted from opensolaris.org
