linux-kernel - Re: Notes on support for multiple devices for a single filesystem

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

Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:20:56 +0100
From:	"Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	"Chris Mason" <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>, adilger@....com,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Notes on support for multiple devices for a single filesystem

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 21:58, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 11:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

>> One thing I've never seen comprehensively addressed is: why do this in
>> the filesystem at all?  Why not let MD take care of all this and
>> present a single block device to the fs layer?
>>
>> Lots of filesystems are violating this, and I'm sure the reasons for
>> this are good, but this document seems like a suitable place in which to
>> briefly decribe those reasons.
>
> I'd almost rather see this doc stick to the device topology interface in
> hopes of describing something that RAID and MD can use too.  But just to
> toss some information into the pool:
>
> * When moving data around (raid rebuild, restripe, pvmove etc), we want
> to make sure the data read off the disk is correct before writing it to
> the new location (checksum verification).
>
> * When moving data around, we don't want to move data that isn't
> actually used by the filesystem.  This could be solved via new APIs, but
> keeping it crash safe would be very tricky.
>
> * When checksum verification fails on read, the FS should be able to ask
> the raid implementation for another copy.  This could be solved via new
> APIs.
>
> * Different parts of the filesystem might want different underlying raid
> parameters.  The easiest example is metadata vs data, where a 4k
> stripesize for data might be a bad idea and a 64k stripesize for
> metadata would result in many more rwm cycles.
>
> * Sharing the filesystem transaction layer.  LVM and MD have to pretend
> they are a single consistent array of bytes all the time, for each and
> every write they return as complete to the FS.
>
> By pushing the multiple device support up into the filesystem, I can
> share the filesystem's transaction layer.  Work can be done in larger
> atomic units, and the filesystem will stay consistent because it is all
> coordinated.
>
> There are other bits and pieces like high speed front end caching
> devices that would be difficult in MD/LVM, but since I don't have that
> coded yet I suppose they don't really count...

Features like the very nice and useful directory-based snapshots would
also not be possible with simple block-based multi-devices, right?

Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/