2. The remote server has successfully received and done the SMBflush
request.
When fsync returns (2) has happened. The server has read and responded
to
the SMBflush. But we don't know if it actually wrote anything to disk.
There is no way the smbfs client can know what the other
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Kevin Liao wrote:
Thanks for your reply. How about to disable the local kernel cache if the
local system is running in the RAM disk so that we may have more memory to
use and no need to worry about all of this?
The local system isn't running in any ram disk when using
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Kevin Liao wrote:
So when fsync() returns, it just means:
1. The remote server has successfully received the SMBflush request but not
proceeded it yet.
or
2. The remote server has successfully received and done the SMBflush
request.
When fsync returns (2) has
Urban Widmark wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Kevin Liao wrote:
So when fsync() returns, it just means:
1. The remote server has successfully received the SMBflush request but not
proceeded it yet.
or
2. The remote server has successfully received and done the SMBflush
request.
The local system isn't running in any ram disk when using smbfs. Even if
you connect to a localhost samba server, that is a remote system as far as
smbfs is concerned.
I'm not sure I understood you here.
/Urban
Sorry I didn't mention it clearly. The local machine does not have any hard
But why do you want to use CIFS for a linux to linux file sharing ???
Wait at least until the Unix extension are ok and work well ...
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:05, Kevin Liao wrote:
The local system isn't running in any ram disk when using smbfs. Even if
you connect to a localhost samba
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Kevin Liao wrote:
called an embedded system. Anyway the local machine will try to smbmount to
the remote machine which is just a normal PC with linux installed. After the
connection has been established successfully, the local system begins
writing files continuously to
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Kevin Liao wrote:
Then, no matter which one of the above two situations happens, the data is
not yet written to the physical storage at that time, right? Should I need
to call fsync() each time after calling write()? Thanks a lot!
Yes, at each point where you want to
