From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: Data coherency trouble with multiple clients, on2.6.14-rc5 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:53:13 -0400 Message-ID: <435FDEA9.5060706@redhat.com> References: <044B81DE141D7443BCE91E8F44B3C1E288E5A5@exsvl02.hq.netapp.com> <1130345451.8852.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <435FCECF.2090800@redhat.com> <1130353693.8859.21.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: "Lever, Charles" , Charles Duffy , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EUrL2-0005az-MW for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:53:32 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1EUrKy-0001dR-AC for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:53:29 -0700 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <1130353693.8859.21.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Trond Myklebust wrote: >on den 26.10.2005 klokka 14:45 (-0400) skreiv Peter Staubach: > > > >>It seems to me that the policy should be to allow cache >>validation/invalidation >>unless the file is mmap'd for writing or if there are active WRITEs >>outstanding. >>Simply having the file open for write should not affect the consistency >>model. >> >> > >That is what we did for 2.4.x, but what kind of extra guarantees does >that really bring you? You cannot actually rely on it to provide >stronger caching semantics than the close-to-open case. > This brings lots of extra guarantees, actually. Just because the file is open for writing does not mean that there are any dirty pages hanging around waiting to be written. And, even if there are, they will get flushed when the conflict is detected. Last there one there wins. This is even the policy when local processes conflict on the same file in the same region. This policy would address the situation that was reported here. This policy will definitely result in _much_ stronger caching semantics than does close-to-open. These two policies together can usually result in reasonable cache consistency, enough for most applications. Applications which need stronger cache consistency should be advisory locking in order to synchronize access to the file. ps ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs