Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 01:31:51 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 266879] fusefs, net/glusterfs: GlusterFS mount not handled as expected Message-ID: <bug-266879-227-B4SDPH41i7@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-266879-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-266879-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D266879 --- Comment #6 from Alan Somers <asomers@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to David from comment #5) > Hmmm FUSE direct_io mount option which I have used or sysctl Yes, fusefs does implement direct_io. > does fuse evict invalidated cache contents on fuse_write_directbackend? = or ? does it read the gluster options? This depends on what gluster does. Early FUSE protocol levels didn't provi= de any primitives for keeping the cache coherent. Later ones do. You may be = able to tell which protocol level glusterfs is using if the daemon has some kind= of --verbose option. > Sorry I'm a bit confused now, doest the BSD implementation of FUSE honour= the gluster options? What options? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-266879-227-B4SDPH41i7>