[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87f94c370908241411r45079c5cx3fc737cf4c3f7d1e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:11:56 -0400
From: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>,
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,
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
> The papers show failures in "once a year" range. I have "twice a
> minute" failure scenario with flashdisks.
>
> Not sure how often "degraded raid5 breaks ext3 atomicity" would bite,
> but I bet it would be on "once a day" scale.
>
I agree it should be documented, but the ext3 atomicity issue is only
an issue on unexpected shutdown while the array is degraded. I surely
hope most people running raid5 are not seeing that level of unexpected
shutdown, let along in a degraded array,
If they are, the atomicity issue pretty strongly says they should not
be using raid5 in that environment. At least not for any filesystem I
know. Having writes to LBA n corrupt LBA n+128 as an example is
pretty hard to design around from a fs perspective.
Greg
--
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