xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: config question (external raid, external log?)

To: Robert Sander <gurubert-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: config question (external raid, external log?)
From: Ragnar Kjørstad <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:30:29 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <news2mail-slrnaf51ci.crn.gurubert-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from ml-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, May 27, 2002 at 07:14:26PM +0000
References: <news2mail-slrnaf3t7i.c3t.gurubert-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020527182135.A27956@xxxxxxxxxx> <news2mail-slrnaf51ci.crn.gurubert-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 07:14:26PM +0000, Robert Sander wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 16:36:24 +0000 (UTC),
>  utz lehmann <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > A warning. All SCSI to IDE RAID Systems i know have non battery backuped
> > cache. In the case of a power outage all unwritten data (and filesystem
> > metadata) in the RAID cache is lost. This cause filesystem corruption.
> > Running a journaled fs with a volatile cache is not recomended.
> 
> Thanks for the warning but the system will have a UPS with enough
> capacity to savely shutdown if the power does not return within 5
> minutes.

The problem remains for crashes or hangs.
Of course that neven happens :)

It causes filesystem corruption for non-journaled filesystems as well,
btw - only they will run fsck on reboot, so you don't risk _mounting_
the corrupted filesystem and making it worse.

If you care at all about your data, do _not_ use non-battery backed
writeback cache. (read cache doesn't need to be battery backed).


-- 
Ragnar Kjorstad
Big Storage


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>