Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!convex.convex.com!thurlow From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs Subject: Re: NFS writes and fsync(). Message-ID: Date: 17 Oct 90 22:41:14 GMT References: <1990Oct9.152612@objy.objy.com> <1990Oct14.082712.10811@objy.com> <1990Oct16.085057.16691@objy.com> Sender: news@convex.com Lines: 21 In <1990Oct16.085057.16691@objy.com> peter@prefect.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Moore) writes: >In article , thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes: >|> I agree that write(2) won't return you an error in general, but processes >|> can, at any point they wish, call fsync() to ensure the data is secured. >|> That ability is lost if the server is acknowledging only the receipt of >|> the request. >I am sorry. I was being unclear. I was only advocating writes become >asynchronous. Calls like fsync (and close if we make it implicitly >fsync) would have to be synchronous. But fsync doesn't go over the wire; if you let the server asynchronously respond to write requests, you won't be able to trust your fsyncs, either. Rob T -- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com or thurlow%convex.com@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "This opinion was the only one available; I got here kind of late."