-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kenny Simpson wrote:
> What is the performance penalty for write access to files in a managed
> directory vs. a fstab entry?
> I have a program that is very sensitive to write latency, and am being
> pressured to use amd or automount to access a NAS instead of my trusty
fstab
> entry.
>
> My app uses a transactional log file that resides on a NAS. I'd
prefer to keep
> a simple fstab entry and use O_DIRECT to access the file, but if there
is no
> penalty, I would switch. Does O_DIRECT have meaning for automount or
> amd-managed files? (isn't amd user-space, so it would need to copy data
> anyway?)
>
As Ian already pointed out, automount simply mounts filesystems in place
when requested and does not affect any file access fast-paths.
Similarly, amd also simply mounts the NFS filesystems, albeit in a
different location and uses symlinks to redirect the user. This has the
side-effect that a chdir('..') will drop you in a different directory.
As long as you have O_DIRECT support in your NFS client, neither
solution will have any real adverse effects on your transactional log.
- --
Mike Waychison
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1 (650) 352-5299 voice
1 (416) 202-8336 voice
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sun.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me,
and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAtJHNdQs4kOxk3/MRAuBmAJ9Ax8CPblvJOiil5CNvFJYerkyMSACeL3wI
ckLOQO+1oIecf0q2Ujoqwe8=
=Z5rB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
