[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
    Theodore Tso wrote:
    > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:41:31PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
    >> Ric Wheeler <> writes:
    >>> The only really safe default is to disable the write cache by default
    >>> or possibly dynamically disable the write cache when barriers are not
    >>> supported by a drive. Both have a severe performance impact and I am
    >>> not sure that for most casual users it is a good trade.
    >> So people ARE running their disks in a mode similar to Ramback.
    > Similar, but not as aggressive. Remember, the size of the write cache
    > on the hard drive is relatively small (small number of megabytes), and
    > the drive generally is relatively aggressive about getting the data
    > out to the platters; it's probably not going to keep unwritten data on
    > the platters for minutes or hours at a time, let alone days. Of
    > course, unless you use write barriers or some kind of explicit write
    > ordering, it's going to write stuff out in an order which is
    > convenient to the hard drive, not necessarily an order convenient to
    > the filesystem.

    You get 8-16MB per disk with most drives today. Different firmware will
    do different things about how aggressively they push the data out to

    > Also, if the system crashes, you don't lose the data in hard drive's
    > write cache, where as the data in Ramback is likely gone. And Ramback
    > is apaprently keeping potentially several gigabytes dirty in memory
    > and *not* writing it out very aggressively. So the exposure is one of
    > degree.
    > In practice, it's interesting that we've had so few people reporting
    > massive data loss despite the lack of the use of write barriers.
    > Sure, in absolutely critical situations, it's not a good thing; but if
    > I had a mail server, where I really wanted to make sure I didn't lose
    > any e-mail, having a small UPS which could keep the server going for
    > just a few minutes so it could do a controlled shutdown on a power
    > failure is probably a better engineering solution from a
    > cost/benefit/performance point of view, compared to turning on write
    > barriers and taking up to two orders of magnitude worth of performance
    > hit.
    > - Ted

    Most people don't see power outages too often - maybe once a year? When
    you travel with a laptop, we are always effectively on a UPS so that
    will also tend to mask this issue.

    The ingest rate at the time of a power hit makes a huge difference as
    well - basically, pulling the power cord when a box is idle is normally
    not harmful. Try that when you are really pounding on the disks and you
    will see corruptions a plenty without barriers ;-)

    One note - the barrier hit for apps that use fsync() is just half an
    order of magnitude (say 35 files/sec instead of 120 files/sec). If you
    don't fsync() each file, the impact is lower still.

    Still expensive, but might be reasonable for home users on a box with
    family photos, etc.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-14 16:51    [W:0.023 / U:3.708 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site