On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
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?
As I understand things, -o log (wapbl) doesn't guarantee file content, only fs metadata.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: | | Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com | | Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net | | Kernel Developer | | pgoyette at netbsd.org | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
