Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpax!cupnews2.cup.hp.com!raj From: raj@cup.hp.com (Rick Jones) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: NFS write performance Date: 12 Jun 1995 18:13:34 GMT Organization: Information Networks Division: Hewlett Packard Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3ri04e$eog@hpindda.cup.hp.com> References: <802730803PCTIN@lot.cs.kiev.ua> <3rh8tm$mhg@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de> Reply-To: raj@cup.hp.com NNTP-Posting-Host: hpindio.cup.hp.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] J Wunsch (j@narcisa.sax.de) wrote: : Certainly not. First, since 2.0.5R left already the door (and there : had been a couple of weeks of a code freeze before), second since NFS : v2 mandates synchronous writes. What you're looking for is defined in : the NFS v3 specs. I'll pick the nit here - the NFS V2 spec mandates "stable storage" but (to my knowledge) does not specify the implementation mechanism (nor stability characteristics?) of that storage - for example, I do not think it explicitly calls for synchronous writes to disc. If the spec did, then all those folks using NVRAM caches would also be in violation of the spec. Of course, this leads to a considreable, periodic thrashing on the topic of "what is stable storage." rick jones