xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3

To: Johannes Stezenbach <js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Nelson <pnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ext2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-list@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:46:46 +0100
In-reply-to: <20040303234104.GD1875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4044119D.6050502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4044366B.3000405@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4044B787.7080301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040303234104.GD1875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Hi!

> It would be nice if someone with more profound knowledge could comment
> on this, but my understanding of the problem is:
> 
> - journaled filesystems can only work when they can enforce that
>   journal data is written to the platters at specifc times wrt
>   normal data writes
> - IDE write caching makes the disk "lie" to the kernel, i.e. it says
>   "I've written the data" when it was only put in the cache
> - now if a *power failure* keeps the disk from writing the cache
>   contents to the platter, the fs and journal are inconsistent
>   (a kernel crash would not cause this problem because the disk can
>   still write the cache contents to the platters)
> - at next mount time the fs will read the journal from the disk
>   and try to use it to bring the fs into a consistent state;
>   however, since the journal on disk is not guaranteed to be up to date
>   this can *fail*  (I have no idea what various fs implementations do
>   to handle this; I suspect they at least refuse to mount and require
>   you to manually run fsck. Or they don't notice and let you work
>   with a corrupt filesystem until they blow up.)
> 
> Right?  Or is this just paranoia?

Twice a year I fsck my reiser drives, and yes there's some corruption there.
So you are right, and its not paranoia.

-- 
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms         


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