On 25 Jan 2000, Markus Stenberg wrote:
>Nod, and that isn't very good. Although violating NFSv2 protocol _has_ to
>be done if you want to guarantee any(*) performance, it's still bad idea as
>default behavior.
I think it make no sense to respect the server-write-sync issue of the
NFSv2 RFC since on the exporting machine we don't have these garantee
either (thus it make no sense we don't have them without NFS and we get
them using NFS). Neither data journaling can help you. Only mounting the
fs in sync mode with a data-journaling fs would provide to the exported fs
the semantics the NFSv2 is supposed to provide. So actually I think the
RFC is way too strict and make no sense to enforce it for the current
2.2.x and 2.3.x systems.
It's fine you can enable the strict RFC behaviour it with a param of
course ;).
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST