Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3 barrier changes
From: Eric Sandeen
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 14:20:31 EST
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:22:25 +0200 Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I tested this one with a larger FS (40GB instead of 2GB) and larger log (128MB
>>> instead of 32MB). barrier-test -s 32 -p 1500 was still able to get a 50%
>>> corruption rate on the larger FS.
>> Ok, Andrew, is this enough to get barrier patch applied and stop
>> corrupting data in default config, or do you want some more testing?
>> I guess 20% benchmark regression is bad, but seldom and impossible to
>> debug data corruption is worse...
> It is 20%? I recall 30% from a few years ago, but that's vague and it
> might have changed. Has much quantitative testing been done recently?
> I might have missed it.
> If we do make this change I think it should be accompanied by noisy
> printks so that as many people as possible know about the decision
> which we just made for them.
> afaik there is no need to enable this feature if the machine (actually
> the disks) are on a UPS, yes?
As long as your power supply (or your UPS) doesn't go boom, I suppose so.
It is too bad that there is no way to determine no-barrier safety from
software. (maybe apcupsd could do something... ;)
I guess it's levels of confidence. I agree that a user education
campaign is probably in order... maybe if this thread is long enough to
make LWN it'll raise some awareness. :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/