| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Update section on NFS |
| Date: | 2019-04-23 15:11:26 |
| Message-ID: | bfb2bb68-c4f1-bf11-b4b8-07f68027e4e9@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2019-04-23 16:15, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 4/23/19 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2019-04-23 14:31, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> Looks like you dropped the advice WRT the asynchronous mount option.
>>> Isn't that is still relevant?
>>
>> I don't think that advice was correct. An async mounted NFS file system
>> will flush data on fsync, which is what one wants.
>>
>
> I don't think so. Not sure if you have an account at Red Hat, but this
> ticket covers it:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/48199
That discusses the equally-named export options on the NFS server, not
the mount options on the NFS client.
You generally do want the sync option on the server so that an fsync
from the client actually reaches the *disk*, not just the memory, of the
NFS server.
But you don't need the sync option on the client.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-04-23 15:52:47 | SET ROLE documentation not entirely correct |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2019-04-23 14:15:12 | Re: Update section on NFS |