From: Sven <svenjaborek@gmx.de>
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: JFFS2: truncated files after power loss scenario
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:59:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1297004384.2084.9.camel@hbox> (raw)
Hi mtd list,
What is the expected behavior for files beeing written on a jffs2 (on
nand) during a power loss? Would an incomplete file exist, or would the journaling do a roll back
because of an incomplete transaction?
Is there a difference with new files created, or existing files beeing modified?
My tests show that on next bootup the file exists, but is truncated. I have not seen any journaling related roll backs.
I took a look at this, because we have seen a truncated configuration file once. I'm not sure what caused this. Perhaps a power loss during write.
What do you think about the following jffs2dump?:
( dwnld.conf was created once by extracting it from an archive,
it might have been modified afterwards. (fopen "w+"; fprintf; close),
the file existed afterwards, but was truncated in to 4k,
then during error analysis the file was renamed "mv dwnld.conf
dwnld.conf.org" and a new file dwnld.conf was created there)
Dirent node at 0x00346f2c, totlen 0x00000032, #pino 41, version 23, #ino 42, nsize 10, name dwnld.conf
Dirent node at 0x003e63e8, totlen 0x00000032, #pino 41, version 5, #ino 42, nsize 10, name dwnld.conf
Dirent node at 0x009c19e0, totlen 0x00000032, #pino 41, version 28, #ino 2484, nsize 10, name dwnld.conf
Dirent node at 0x009fc398, totlen 0x00000036, #pino 41, version 27, #ino 42, nsize 14, name dwnld.conf.org
Inode node at 0x003e63a4, totlen 0x00000044, #ino 42, version 1, isize 0, csize 0, dsize 0, offset 0
Inode node at 0x003e641c, totlen 0x000005d8, #ino 42, version 2, isize 4096, csize 1428, dsize 4096, offset 0
Inode node at 0x003e69f4, totlen 0x000006f5, #ino 42, version 3, isize 8192, csize 1713, dsize 4096, offset 4096
Inode node at 0x003e70ec, totlen 0x0000028f, #ino 42, version 4, isize 9445, csize 587, dsize 1253, offset 8192
Inode node at 0x003e737c, totlen 0x00000044, #ino 42, version 5, isize 9445, csize 0, dsize 0, offset 0
Inode node at 0x003e73c0, totlen 0x00000044, #ino 42, version 6, isize 9445, csize 0, dsize 0, offset 0
Inode node at 0x003e7404, totlen 0x00000044, #ino 42, version 7, isize 9445, csize 0, dsize 0, offset 0
Inode node at 0x009bcba8, totlen 0x000005d8, #ino 42, version 9, isize 4096, csize 1428, dsize 4096, offset 0
Inode node at 0x00e51ea0, totlen 0x000005d8, #ino 42, version 9, isize 4096, csize 1428, dsize 4096, offset 0
I reproduced a good-case of the actions on the file with a fresh filesystem:
Dirent node at 0x00364e3c, totlen 0x00000032, #pino 41, version 11, #ino 42, nsize 10, name dwnld.conf
Dirent node at 0x00553000, totlen 0x00000036, #pino 41, version 12, #ino 42, nsize 14, name dwnld.conf.org
Dirent node at 0x00553038, totlen 0x00000032, #pino 41, version 13, #ino 0, nsize 10, name dwnld.conf
Dirent node at 0x00555844, totlen 0x00000032, #pino 41, version 14, #ino 1171, nsize 10, name dwnld.conf
Inode node at 0x00364e70, totlen 0x00000044, #ino 42, version 10, isize 9445, csize 0, dsize 0, offset 0
Inode node at 0x00449cb4, totlen 0x000005d8, #ino 42, version 2, isize 4096, csize 1428, dsize 4096, offset 0
Inode node at 0x0044a2c8, totlen 0x000006f5, #ino 42, version 3, isize 8192, csize 1713, dsize 4096, offset 4096
Inode node at 0x0044accc, totlen 0x0000028f, #ino 42, version 4, isize 9445, csize 587, dsize 1253, offset 8192
Inode node at 0x0096e1c4, totlen 0x00000044, #ino 42, version 11, isize 0, csize 0, dsize 0, offset 0
Inode node at 0x0096e208, totlen 0x000005d8, #ino 42, version 12, isize 4096, csize 1428, dsize 4096, offset 0
Inode node at 0x0096e7e0, totlen 0x000006f5, #ino 42, version 13, isize 8192, csize 1713, dsize 4096, offset 4096
Inode node at 0x0096eed8, totlen 0x0000028f, #ino 42, version 14, isize 9445, csize 587, dsize 1253, offset 8192
I wonder about the Inode #42 Version 5 to 9 and about why two Dirent exist(ed) for #ino 42.
Do you think this was caused by a power loss scenario?
The truncated file error happened on a 2.6.18 based kernel.
I have done power loss tests on 2.6.34, which showed truncated files as well.
regards, Sven Jaborek
next reply other threads:[~2011-02-06 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-06 14:59 Sven [this message]
2011-02-06 15:25 ` JFFS2: truncated files after power loss scenario Artem Bityutskiy
2011-02-06 15:47 ` Sven
2011-02-06 16:03 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2011-02-06 17:12 ` Albrecht Dreß
2011-02-06 17:39 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2011-02-06 18:40 ` Albrecht Dreß
2011-02-11 14:00 ` Artem Bityutskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1297004384.2084.9.camel@hbox \
--to=svenjaborek@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox