[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Disk (block) write strangeness
    On Monday 05 August 2002 21:49 pm, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
    > Hello all,
    > While investigating how various disks handle power-loss during writes, I
    > came across something *very* strange.
    > It seems that
    > *) Either the disk writes backwards (no I don't believe that)
    > *) Or the kernel is writing 256 B blocks (AFAIK it can't)
    > *) The disk has some internal magic that cause a power-loss during
    > a full block write to leave the first half of the block intact with
    > old data, and update the second half of a block correctly with new
    > data. (And I don't believe that either).
    > The scenario is: I wrote a program that will write a 50 MB block with
    > O_SYNC to /dev/hdc. The block is full of 32-bit integers, initialized
    > to 0. For every full block write (the block is written with one single
    > write() call), the integers are incremented once.
    > So first I have 50 MB of 0's. Then 50 MB of 1's. etc.
    > During this write cycle, I pull the power cable. I get the machine
    > back online and I dump the 50 MB block.
    > What I found was a 50 MB block holding:
    > 11668992 times "0x00000002"
    > 231168 times "0x00000003"
    > 1174528 times "0x00000002"
    > 32512 times "0x00000003"
    > Please note that 32512 is *not* a multiple of 512. And please note that
    > the 3's are written *after* the 2's, so actually there is a 512 byte
    > block on the disk which contains 2's in the first half, and 3's in the
    > second half!

    Integers are 32 bit, so a 512 byte disk block contains 128 such integers...
    Indeed, All the values above are divisible by 128, so you have:
    11668992/128 = 91164 blocks of "0x00000002"
    231168/128 = 1806 blocks of "0x00000003"
    1174528/128 = 9176 blocks of "0x00000002"
    32512/128 = 254 blocks of "0x00000003"

    This does not prove, neither disprove anything about your
    main concern, that writes are non-atomic in the block level.

    > How on earth could that happen ?
    > Why does the kernel not write from beginning to end ? Or why doesn't
    > the disk ?
    > And does the elevator cause the writes to be shuffled around like that -
    > I would have expected the kernel to write from beginning to end every
    > single time...

    I would not expect writes to be in order.
    A simple elevator algorithm could write fragments (cylinder sized?)
    in reverse order. On-disk write scheduling could start writing at any
    sector (to minimize rotational latency).

    Knowing the disk geometry and parameters could help with understanding
    your results.

    > The kernel is 2.4.18 on some i686 box
    > The disk is a Quantum Fireball 1GB IDE (from way back then ;)
    > The IDE chipset is an I820 Camino 2
    > I can submit the test program or do further tests, if anyone is
    > interested.
    > Thank you,

    -- Itai

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.025 / U:0.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site