Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't comment on the error conditions that can occur during
the writing of data upon close(). What you describe is the preferred
method of obtaining any errors that occur during the writing of data.
This occurs because the NFS client is writing
On Fri, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't comment on the error conditions that can occur during
the writing of data upon close(). What you describe is the preferred
method of obtaining any errors that occur during the writing of data.
This occurs
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, the code in Solaris would behave as I described. Upon the
application closing the file, modified data is written to the server.
The client waits for completion of those writes. If there is an error,
it is returned to the caller of close().
Jeff Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your working did not match with the reality, this is why I did write this.
You did write that upon close() the client will first do something similar
to
fsync on that file. The problem is that this is done asynchronously and the
close() return value
On Fri, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, the code in Solaris would behave as I described. Upon the
application closing the file, modified data is written to the server.
The client waits for completion of those writes. If there is an error,
it is
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The close-to-open behavior of NFS clients is what ensures that the
file data is on stable storage when close() returns.
In the 1980s this was definitely not the case. When did this change?
The meta-data requirements of NFS is what ensures that file
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The close-to-open behavior of NFS clients is what ensures that the
file data is on stable storage when close() returns.
In the 1980s this was definitely not the case.
On Thu, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Spencer Shepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The close-to-open behavior of NFS clients is what ensures that the
file data is on stable storage when close() returns.
In the
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:25:36 +0200, Roch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You tell me ? We have 2 issues
can we make 'tar x' over direct attach, safe (fsync)
and posix compliant while staying close to current
performance characteristics ? In other words do we
have the
