Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3:document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

[Ric Wheeler]

On 08/31/2009 11:50 AM, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> > On 08/31/2009 09:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 09:15:27AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > > While most common filesystem do have barrier support it is:
> > > > >
> > > > > - not actually enabled for the two most common filesystems
> > > > > - the support for write barriers an cache flushing tends to be buggy
> > > > > all over our software stack,
> > > >
> > > > Or just missing - I think that MD5/6 simply drop the requests at
> > > > present.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if it would be worth having MD probe for write cache enabled&
> > > > warn if barriers are not supported?
> > >
> > > In my opinion even that is too weak. We know how to control the cache
> > > settings on all common disks (that is scsi and ata), so we should always
> > > disable the write cache unless we know that the whole stack (filesystem,
> > > raid, volume managers) supports barriers. And even then we should make
> > > sure the filesystems does actually use barriers everywhere that's needed
> > > which failed at for years.
> >
> > I was thinking about that as well. Having us disable the write cache
> > when we know it is not supported (like in the MD5 case) would
> > certainly be *much* safer for almost everyone.
> >
> > We would need to have a way to override the write cache disabling for
> > people who either know that they have a non-volatile write cache
> > (unlikely as it would probably be to put MD5 on top of a hardware
> > RAID/external array, but some of the new SSD's claim to have
> > non-volatile write cache).
>
> I've done this when the hardware raid only suppored raid 5 but I wanted
> raid 6. I've also done it when I had enough disks to need more than one
> hardware raid card to talk to them all, but wanted one logical drive for
> the system.
>
> > It would also be very useful to have all of our top tier file systems
> > enable barriers by default, provide consistent barrier on/off mount
> > options and log a nice warning when not enabled....
>
> most people are not willing to live with unbuffered write performance.
> they care about their data, but they also care about performance, and
> since performance is what they see on an ongong basis, they tend to care
> more about performance.
>
> given that we don't even have barriers enabled by default on ext3 due to
> the performance hit, what makes you think that disabling buffers
> entirely is going to be acceptable to people?
>
> David Lang

We do (and have for a number of years) enable barriers by default for XFS and 
reiserfs. In SLES, ext3 has default barriers as well.

Ric

--
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/