[arch-general] NFS close-to-open

Paul Gideon Dann pdgiddie at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 04:50:02 EST 2012

On Thursday 13 Dec 2012 15:53:32 Bryan wrote:
> I double checked with Trond and he agrees that we shouldn't defer the flush
> because that would cause us to hold the file open for longer than we really
> should (and it would make NFS sillyrenames more difficult, too).

I thought that's why the "nocto" documentation (and general guidance) says 
it's not safe to use this mount option for directories that are shared between 
several clients?

My particular usecase is a remote-mounted /var, which is used only by a single 
client.  I'd like to avoid the flushing bottleneck, but would also like to 
avoid the danger of the client and server being out of sync if the server 
falls over and reboots.  Am I misunderstanding the stated purpose of "nocto" 
(preventing close-to-open)?  It seemed to fit this scenario perfectly :(


P.S.: Sorry, I've realised that I've been accidentally replying directly to 
Bryan instead of to the mailing list.

More information about the arch-general mailing list