Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? | Date | Mon, 2 Oct 2000 01:03:07 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
Robert Redelmeier writes: > Daniel Phillips wrote in part:
>> One thing to keep in mind in all of this is: nobody is testing the >> reliability of their journalling or any other kind of filesystem just by >> running it. To test these things you have to crash/interrupt the system >> *a lot*. Otherwise, you are just fooling yourself and everybody else. >> How many crashes does it take to find that one little window of >> vulnerability that comes up every 10,000 crashes normally but suddenly >> starts coming up every time just because your customer uses their system >> a different way? You're doing the right thing by crash-testing it, now >> instead of doing it 5 times do it 1,000 times. Here's one of my >> favorite tests: unzip a kernel source tree and wait until the disk light >> goes out. A second or so after it comes on again (kflushd) hit the >> reset button. > > Good idea. I certainly believe in stressing hardware (see .sig), > but I'm not sure this test is rigorous enough. The problem is > the reset button is only connected to the CPU and the hard disk > will probably continue to write out sectors from it's hw buffer. > OTOH, I don't like the idea of pulling the plug too often. It's > very hard on the hardware. I'd expect a mechanical disk failure > before 10,000 cycles.
The nice way to develop this code is with a block device that discards all writes after a timer goes off. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |