[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:39:12 -0400
From: tytso@....edu
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>, david@...g.hm,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>,
Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
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, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: fsck more often when powerfail is detected (was Re: wishful
thinking about atomic, multi-sector or full MD stripe width, writes in
storage)
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 03:47:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Yes, but ext3 does not enable barriers by default (the patch has been
> > submitted but akpm has balked because he doesn't like the performance
> > degredation and doesn't believe that Chris Mason's "workload of doom"
> > is a common case). Note though that it is possible for dirty blocks
> > to remain in the track buffer for *minutes* without being written to
> > spinning rust platters without a barrier.
>
> So we do wrong thing by default. Another reason to do fsck more often
> when powerfails are present?
Or migrate to ext4, which does use barriers by defaults, as well as
journal-level checksumming. :-)
As far as changing the default to enable barriers for ext3, you'll
need to talk to akpm about that; he's the one who has been against it
in the past.
- Ted
--
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