[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
On Mar. 24, 2009, 21:55 +0200, Jeff Garzik <> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> But I really don't understand filesystem people who think that "fsck" is
>> the important part, regardless of whether the data is valid or not. That's
>> just stupid and _obviously_ bogus.
> I think I can understand that point of view, at least:
> More customers complain about hours-long fsck times than they do about
> silent data corruption of non-fsync'd files.
>> The point is, if you write your metadata earlier (say, every 5 sec) and
>> the real data later (say, every 30 sec), you're actually MORE LIKELY to
>> see corrupt files than if you try to write them together.
>> And if you write your data _first_, you're never going to see corruption
>> at all.
> Amen.
> And, personal filesystem pet peeve: please encourage proper FLUSH CACHE
> use to give users the data guarantees they deserve. Linux's sync(2) and
> fsync(2) (and fdatasync, etc.) should poke the block layer to guarantee
> a media write.

I completely agree. This also applies to nfsd_sync, by the way.
What's the right place to implement that?
How about sync_blockdev?


> Jeff
> P.S. Overall, I am thrilled that this ext3/ext4 transition and
> associated slashdotting has spurred debate over filesystem data
> guarantees. This is the kind of discussion that has needed to happen
> for years, IMO.
> --
> 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

Benny Halevy
Software Architect
Panasas, Inc.
Tel/Fax: +972-3-647-8340
Mobile: +972-54-802-8340

Panasas: The Leader in Parallel Storage

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-25 10:37    [W:0.577 / U:3.476 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site