Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:00:58 -0400 | From | Ric Wheeler <> | Subject | Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible |
| |
On 08/27/2009 04:51 PM, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 27 August 2009 06:43:49 Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> On 08/26/2009 11:53 PM, Rob Landley wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 18:40:50 Ric Wheeler wrote: >>> >>>> Repeat experiment until you get up to something like google scale or the >>>> other papers on failures in national labs in the US and then we can have >>>> an informed discussion. >>>> >>> On google scale anvil lightning can fry your machine out of a clear sky. >>> >>> However, there are still a few non-enterprise users out there, and >>> knowing that specific usage patterns don't behave like they expect might >>> be useful to them. >>> >> You are missing the broader point of both papers. >> > No, I'm dismissing the papers (some of which I read when they first came out > and got slashdotted) as irrelevant to the topic at hand. >
I guess I have to dismiss your dismissing then. > Pavel has two failure modes which he can trivially reproduce. The USB stick > one is reproducible on a laptop by jostling said stick. I myself used to have > a literal USB keychain, and the weight of keys dangling from it pulled it out > of the USB socket fairly easily if I wasn't careful. At the time nobody had > told me a journaling filesystem was not a reasonable safeguard here. > > Presumably the degraded raid one can be reproduced under an emulator, with no > hardware directly involved at all, so talking about hardware failure rates > ignores the fact that he's actually discussing a _software_ problem. It may > happen in _response_ to hardware failures, but the damage he's attempting to > document happens entirely in software. > > These failure modes can cause data loss which journaling can't help, but which > journaling might (or might not) conceivably hide so you don't immediately > notice it. They share a common underlying assumption that the storage > device's update granularity is less than or equal to the filesystem's block > size, which is not actually true of all modern storage devices. The fact he's > only _found_ two instances where this assumption bites doesn't mean there > aren't more waiting to be found, especially as more new storage media types > get introduced. > > Pavel's response was to attempt to document this. Not that journaling is > _bad_, but that it doesn't protect against this class of problem. > > Your response is to talk about google clusters, cloud storage, and cite > academic papers of statistical hardware failure rates. As I understand the > discussion, that's not actually the issue Pavel's talking about, merely one > potential trigger for it. > > Rob >
| |