[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectfsck more often when powerfail is detected (was Re: wishful thinking about atomic, multi-sector or full MD stripe width, writes in storage)

> > Yes, but ext3 was designed to handle the partial write (according to
> > tytso).
> I'm not sure what made you think that I said that. In practice things
> usually work out, as a conseuqence of the fact that ext3 uses physical
> block journaling, but it's not perfect, becase...

Ok; so the journalling actually is not reliable on many machines --
not even disk drive manufacturers guarantee full block writes AFAICT.

Maybe there's time to reviwe the patch to increase mount count by >1
when journal is replayed, to do fsck more often when powerfails are

> > > Also, when you enable the write cache (MD or not) you are buffering
> > > multiple MB's of data that can go away on power loss. Far greater (10x)
> > > the exposure that the partial RAID rewrite case worries about.
> >
> > Yes, that's what barriers are for. Except that they are not there on
> > MD0/MD5/MD6. They actually work on local sata drives...
> Yes, but ext3 does not enable barriers by default (the patch has been
> submitted but akpm has balked because he doesn't like the performance
> degredation and doesn't believe that Chris Mason's "workload of doom"
> is a common case). Note though that it is possible for dirty blocks
> to remain in the track buffer for *minutes* without being written to
> spinning rust platters without a barrier.

So we do wrong thing by default. Another reason to do fsck more often
when powerfails are present?
(cesky, pictures)

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-04 15:51    [W:0.347 / U:4.920 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site