[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090824184421.GC28403@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:44:21 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
tytso@....edu, rdunlap@...otime.net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is
possible
> > +Either whole sector is correctly written or nothing is written during
> > +powerfail.
> > +
> > + Because RAM tends to fail faster than rest of system during
> > + powerfail, special hw killing DMA transfers may be necessary;
> > + otherwise, disks may write garbage during powerfail.
> > + This may be quite common on generic PC machines.
> > +
> > + Note that atomic write is very hard to guarantee for RAID-4/5/6,
> > + because it needs to write both changed data, and parity, to
> > + different disks. (But it will only really show up in degraded mode).
> > + UPS for RAID array should help.
>
> Can someone clarify if this is true in raid-6 with just a single disk
> failure? I don't see why it would be.
>
> And if not can the above text be changed to reflect raid 4/5 with a
> single disk failure and raid 6 with a double disk failure are the
> modes that have atomicity problems.
I don't know enough about raid-6, but... I said "degraded mode" above,
and you can read it as double failure in raid-6 case ;-). I'll prefer
to avoid too many details here.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists