public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: xfs didn't provide redundancy for citical data structure?
       [not found] <AANLkTimP06rpMX4BRaRIggMctQ2qR7Cul9yqcJR6Xj3O@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2010-05-16  2:59 ` Stan Hoeppner
  2010-05-16 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stan Hoeppner @ 2010-05-16  2:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xfs

hank peng put forth on 5/15/2010 10:57 AM:
> I read this paper: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~vshree/xfs.pdf, which
> says xfs didn't provide redundancy for citical data structure, such as
> mirror, parity. I wonder if it is so?
> If it is, is there plan to implement that for XFS developers?

This paper was published in early 2005, the research based on Linux 2.6.9,
which was released in 2004.  The analysis was performed on code that is now
~6 years old.

Are these shortcomings valid?  Have any been addressed/fixed since 2004?
Does real world usage show they're not needed, or that the development
cost/benefit ratio is too high to bother implementing the changes?

-- 
Stan

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: xfs didn't provide redundancy for citical data structure?
       [not found] <AANLkTimP06rpMX4BRaRIggMctQ2qR7Cul9yqcJR6Xj3O@mail.gmail.com>
  2010-05-16  2:59 ` xfs didn't provide redundancy for citical data structure? Stan Hoeppner
@ 2010-05-16 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2010-05-16 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: hank peng; +Cc: xfs-oss

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:57:51PM +0800, hank peng wrote:
> I read this paper: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~vshree/xfs.pdf, which
> says xfs didn't provide redundancy for citical data structure, such as
> mirror, parity. I wonder if it is so?
> If it is, is there plan to implement that for XFS developers?

XFS assumes redundancy and protection against bit errors is done in
the block layeri (i.e. RAID of some kind). Changing that assumption
takes a lot of work and involves modifying the disk format, so can't
be done overnight. That being said, work is in progress to make XFS
more robust - see this page for ideas on how we are approaching the
problem:

http://xfs.org/index.php/Reliable_Detection_and_Repair_of_Metadata_Corruption

I'll also point out that the above paper makes some fundamental
mistakes (e.g. XFS does not use "data=ordered" journalling as they
conclude it does from a limited observation). Hence the rest of
their results are somewhat questionable, too, as we can't examine
them closely enough to confirm or deny them....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2010-05-16 23:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <AANLkTimP06rpMX4BRaRIggMctQ2qR7Cul9yqcJR6Xj3O@mail.gmail.com>
2010-05-16  2:59 ` xfs didn't provide redundancy for citical data structure? Stan Hoeppner
2010-05-16 23:32 ` Dave Chinner

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox