linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] Barriers still not passing on simple dm devices...

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]

Message-ID: <49DDD26A.2090901@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:48:10 -0400
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, "MASON, CHRISTOPHER" <CHRIS.MASON@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Barriers still not passing on simple dm devices...

Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>> And I will restate that back at EMC we tested the original barriers (with
>> reiserfs mostly, a bit on ext3 and ext2) and saw significant reduction in file
>> system integrity issues after power loss.
>>     
>
> You saw that barrier-enabled filesystem was worse than the same filesystem 
> without barriers? And what kind of issues were that? Disks writing damaged 
> sectors if powered-off in the middle of the writes? Or data corruptions 
> due to bugs in ReiserFS?
>   

No - I was not being clear. We saw a reduction in issues which is a 
confusing way to say that it was significantly better with barriers 
enabled, for both ext3 & reiserfs.

>   
>> The vantage point I had at EMC while testing and deploying the original
>> barrier work done by Jens and Chris was pretty unique - full ability to do
>> root cause failures of any component when really needed, a huge installed base
>> which could send information home on a regular basis about crashes/fsck
>> instances/etc and the ability (with customer permission) to dial into any box
>> and diagnose issues remotely. Not to mention access to drive vendors to
>> pressure them to make the flushes more robust. The application was also able
>> to validate that all acknowledged writes were consistent.
>>
>> Barriers do work as we have them, but as others have mentioned, it is not a
>> "free" win - fsync will actually move your data safely out to persistent
>> storage for a huge percentage of real users (including every ATA/S-ATA and SAS
>> drive I was able to test).  The file systems I monitored in production use
>> without barriers were much less reliable.
>>     
>
> With write cache or without write cache?
>   
Write cache enabled.

Barriers are off when write cache is disabled - we probe the drives 
write cache and enable barriers at mount time if and only if the 
barriers are on.
> With cache and without barriers the system is violating the specification. 
> There just could be data corruption ... and it will eventually happen.
>
> If you got corruption without cache and without barriers, there's a bug 
> and it needs to be investigated.
>
>   
>> As others have noted, some storage does not need barriers or flushed (high end
>> arrays, drives with no volatile write cache) and some need it but stink (low
>> cost USB flash sticks?) so warning is a good thing to do...
>>
>> ric
>>     
>
> Mikulas
>   

--
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/