Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:35588 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754377AbcDKQl6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:41:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:41:54 -0400 From: "'J. Bruce Fields'" To: Frank Filz Cc: "'Tushar Shinde'" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] NFSv4 open close operations are slow compared to Linux kernel NFSv4 Message-ID: <20160411164154.GG4479@fieldses.org> References: <20160408211526.GC25179@fieldses.org> <00f201d19408$87499250$95dcb6f0$@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <00f201d19408$87499250$95dcb6f0$@mindspring.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (Moving discussion to linux-nfs list, as it's no longer a Ganesha issue.) On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:40:50AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote: > Use of async on knfsd is not fair to use in performance evaluation. I have > long lobbied for renaming the async option to "I don't care about my data." Yes, renaming might be doable. "I_dont_care_about_my_data" is a little cumbersome. I'm not sure what's best. Maybe "unsafe_commit"? Though that might give the incorrect impression it's just about the commit operation. I'm not sure how to manage the transition. - Even if they're using "async", they don't deserve to have their server suddenly break on upgrade, so we need to continue to respect "async" in existing /etc/exports files. - Are there scripts that scan exports for "sync" or "async" options anywhere, and how might they go wrong? Maybe I'm overthinking this. Maybe it'd be good enough to: - keep kernel interfaces the same. - in nfs-utils, use "unsafe_commit" in all output in place of "async". Accept "async" as a synonym, but possibly warn that it's been renamed. --b.