Emmanuel Dreyfus <[email protected]> wrote: > async Assume that unstable write requests have actually been committed > to stable storage on the server, and thus will not require > resending in the event that the server crashes. Use of this > option may improve performance but only at the risk of data loss > if the server crashes. Note: this mount option will only be hon- > ored if the nfs.client.allow_async option in nfs.conf(5) is also > enabled.
I tried moving a client NFS mount to async. The result is that the server never sees a filesync again from that client. What are the consequences? I understand that if I use -o log server-side, I will still benefit regular flushes. I will loose the guarantee that client fsync(2) push data to stable storage, but I will not have corrupted files on server crash. Is that right? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz [email protected]
