On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:23:49PM +0200, SER.RI-TIC - David Losada wrote: > mmm... well, it doesn't seem to be working like that in the version that > ships with RHEL4. I will get around to try it on a fresh build on monday > and report to you about it. > > However, I can imagine it would result in quite a big performance hit > all around. If the 'syncy' behaviour could be restricted to the "set > allocation size" call, maybe that would be a little bit less painful ;) > > Pity about linux NFS client semantics, it was working nice in Solaris. > Maybe should nag the kernel mantainer for this code ;) > > Right, looking at performance, we should be serving SMB from the NAS > appliances. Will need to look again at the possibilities these > appliances offer.
More data on the exact call being made (debug level 10) would help. Any write call should go through sync_file() before returning success .... ah - we're not checking the error return from this ! Doh ! Ok, I'll fix that. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
