On Thursday 13 Dec 2012 15:53:32 Bryan wrote: > I double checked with Trond and he agrees that we shouldn't defer the flush > because that would cause us to hold the file open for longer than we really > should (and it would make NFS sillyrenames more difficult, too).
I thought that's why the "nocto" documentation (and general guidance) says it's not safe to use this mount option for directories that are shared between several clients? My particular usecase is a remote-mounted /var, which is used only by a single client. I'd like to avoid the flushing bottleneck, but would also like to avoid the danger of the client and server being out of sync if the server falls over and reboots. Am I misunderstanding the stated purpose of "nocto" (preventing close-to-open)? It seemed to fit this scenario perfectly :( Paul P.S.: Sorry, I've realised that I've been accidentally replying directly to Bryan instead of to the mailing list.
