Re: fsck more often when powerfail is detected (was Re: wishfulthinking about atomic, multi-sector or full MD stripe width, writes instorage)
Date: Sun Apr 04 2010 - 13:40:57 EST
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.
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/