From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov  6 13:31:04 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056BE106564A;
	Sun,  6 Nov 2011 13:31:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org)
Received: from smtp-out3.tiscali.nl (smtp-out3.tiscali.nl [195.241.79.178])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92A98FC08;
	Sun,  6 Nov 2011 13:31:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [212.182.167.131] (helo=sjakie.klop.ws)
	by smtp-out3.tiscali.nl with esmtp (Exim)
	(envelope-from <ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org>)
	id 1RN2Vn-0001eP-CR; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:11:47 +0100
Received: from 212-182-167-131.ip.telfort.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sjakie.klop.ws (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABD84097;
	Sun,  6 Nov 2011 14:11:33 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, "Rick Macklem" <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
References: <1558351773.1229453.1320542285788.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:11:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org>
Message-ID: <op.v4iz9jic8527sy@212-182-167-131.ip.telfort.nl>
In-Reply-To: <1558351773.1229453.1320542285788.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.52 (FreeBSD)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Josh Paetzel <jpaetzel@freebsd.org>, zkirsch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should vfs.nfsrv.async be implemented for new NFS server?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:31:04 -0000

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 02:18:05 +0100, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> =20
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Josh Paetzel pointed out that vfs.nfsrv.async doesn't exist
> for the new NFS server.
>
> I don't think I had spotted this before, but when I looked I
> saw that, when vfs.nfsrv.async is set non-zero in the old server,
> it returns FILESYNC (which means the write has been committed to
> non-volatile storage) even when it hasn't actually done that.
>
> This can improve performance, but has some negative implications:
> - If the server crashes before the write is committed to
>   non-volatile storage, the file modification will be lost.
>   (When a server replies UNSTABLE to a write, the client holds
>    onto the data in its cache and does the write again if the
>    server crashes/reboots before the client does a Commit RPC
>    for the file. However, a reply of FILESYNC tells the client
>    it can forget about the write, because it is done.)
> - Because of the above, replying FILESYNC when the data is not
>   yet committed to non-volatile (also referred to as stable)
>   storage, this is a violation of RFC1813.

Just out of curiosity. Why would lying about FILESYNC improve performance=
 =20
over UNSTABLE? The server does the same work. Only the client holds data =
=20
longer in memory. I only see impact if the client has just a little bit o=
f =20
memory.

Ronald.