Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 18:02, Philipp Reisner wrote: > > I'm mounting sync. I'm afraid that since we need the NFS failover between > > the servers, A + async may not be an option for us :/ Our users would eat > > us alive. > > This is probabely the reason for you bad performance. > > My choice would be normal (=async) NFS mount plus DRBD in protocol C. > > This has the same semantics as a local filesystem: The return of the > write system call means that the data is in the OS's buffers, the > return of the fsync()/fdatasync() syscall means that it is on disk. > > Do you mount your local filesystems with the "sync" option ? > I do not do this. I see this as the common semantics which under > Unix/Linux. > I wanted to add: There only way to run a "sync" mounted FS with tolerable performance is to use a controller with battery backed- up RAM. -philipp -- : Dipl-Ing Philipp Reisner Tel +43-1-8178292-50 : : LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 : : Schönbrunnerstr 244, 1120 Vienna, Austria http://www.linbit.com :