linux-ext4 - Re: ext4 barrier on SCSI vs SATA?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 12:51:48 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Asdo <asdo@...ftmail.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 barrier on SCSI vs SATA?

On Mon 14-05-12 12:33:03, Asdo wrote:
> On 05/14/12 11:02, Jan Kara wrote:
> >>However the flush was always available (I think), in fact databases
> >>would not corrupt (not even above ext4 nobarrier, above a raid5
> >>without barriers) if fsync was called at proper times.
> >   This is not true. Both cache flushes and barriers were implemented by
> >the same mechanism in older kernels. Thus if the device did not properly
> >propagate the barrier capability, then fsync did not provide any guarantees
> >in case of power failure (if there are volalile write caches in the storage
> >device).
> 
> Oh! Thanks I had not realized this.
> 
> So, if barrier IS provided by the underlying blockdevice but
> filesystem is nevertheless mounted as nobarrier (as an explicit
> option) would database flushes (fsync) for files on THAT filesystem
> work properly or not?
  If you have volatile write caches, they would not. nobarrier option
means: "I *know* I don't need cache flushes for data integrity and I want
maximum performance."

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html