xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Repeating fs corruption

To: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Repeating fs corruption
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:16:01 +0200
Cc: ViNiL <vladimir.linek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200606271306.43872.tes@xxxxxxx>
References: <200606201758.20400.vladimir.linek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200606210854.57238.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <200606271306.43872.tes@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
Am Dienstag 27 Juni 2006 05:06 schrieb Timothy Shimmin:

> > yes I did, but still I do not understand the complete picture:
> >
> > Firstly hdparm -i /dev/somedevice does not show the *current* state
> > of the write cache but only the harddisk default state. This can
> > easily be verified by using hdparm -W0 and then hdparm -i again.
> > Unfortunately it is not possible to query the write cache status via
> > hdparm -W.
>
> But how about using "hdparm -I" like the faq suggests? :)
> Uppercase -I seems to work for me.

Hello Timothy,

thank you. Yeah, hdparm -I works for me, too. I didn't notice that it was 
an uppercase I in the FAQ. 

> > I am have the oppinion, that XFS should deny write access when it
> > detects it cannot be safe. But for that it would be necessary to
> > query the current harddisks writecache state and whether write
> > barrier is available. It write cache is on and write barrier is off,
> > XFS should mount read only IMHO and issuing a big fat warning.

> Yeah, this subject has been discussed before with the XFS team.

Right now things seem to be pretty stable with 2.6.17.1 and disabled write 
caches. If all goes well, I will make a backup next weekend and enable 
the write caches to see what happens.

I have the good feeling that 2.6.17 is more stable than 2.6.16 was in its 
beginning. Let's see. 

Regards,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


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