[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <92D12632-34EB-4EC9-AD3B-FD23D8E0C7F1@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:35:57 +0000
From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
CC: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian
Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Oleg Nesterov
<oleg@...hat.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS
Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nfsd: use __fput_sync() to avoid delayed closing of
files.
> On Dec 15, 2023, at 1:27 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I'm also sure I remember that nfs wasn't supposed to respond to a write
> until it had issued the actual disk write - but maybe no one do that
> any more because it really is too slow.
> (Especially if the 'disk' is a USB stick.)
That rule applies only to NFSv2, which no-one should use any more.
NFSv3 and later use a two-phase write. Clients send a COMMIT after
an UNSTABLE WRITE to get the persistence guarantee.
--
Chuck Lever
Powered by blists - more mailing lists