public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Julien FERRERO <jferrero06@gmail.com>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS filesystem corruption
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:22:14 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130307232214.GY23616@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcwv6wK7m5UbJZass5690N5UpXEMV+HVzJa5mn9KWtT9UPQ9w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 02:15:31PM +0100, Julien FERRERO wrote:
> > We actually test brutal "Power off" for xfs, ext4 and other file systems. If
> > your storage is configured properly and you have barriers enabled, they all
> > pass without corruption.
> >
> > What hardware raid cards can do is to hide a volatile write cache. Either on
> > the raid HBA itself or, even worse, on the backend disks behind the card.
> > S-ata disks tend to default to write cache enabled and need to be checked
> > especially careful (sas drives tend to be write cache disabled by default).
> 
> Write cache is supposed to be disabled on the H/W RAID (according to
> hdparm) and barrier are correctly enabled since xfs does not report
> any warning at mount.
> 
> The odd thing is we never see this with kernel 2.6.18 where barriers
> weren't yet available.

Yes they were. XFS had barrier support added in 2.6.15.

> An other difference is the "unwritten extend"
> that was used to set to 0 by default. Now we cannot change this
> setting according to an old thread I've found: "unwritten extents on
> linux are generally a bad idea, this option should not be used.".

Yes, that would have been me that said that. I started seeing lots
of boy-racer "tweak your filesystem to go faster" blogs recommending
that unwritten extents should be turned off high up in google
results, with numbers to prove that it improved performance.

There were two common things wrong with these blogs:

	1. None of them mentioned that turning off unwritten extents
	exposes stale data to users. i.e. a whopping great big
	security hole.

	2. they reported significant performance improvements for
	workloads that *didn't use unwritten extents* when they set
	this flag. i.e. they mistook run-to-run variablity of the
	benchmark for a performance improvement. i.e. Benchmarking
	101 Fail.

When you get people who do not understand what they are doing and
giving bad advice as the first 10 hits for a google search about
optimising/tuning XFS filesystems, it's a major concern, and so I
took steps to ensure you can't turn off unwritten extents with
mkfs...

> Unfortunately, the engineer that chose this setting is no longer
> working with us...

It sounds like he read one too many of these blogs, because if mysql
is triggering speculative preallocation, it is not using unwritten
extents....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-03-07 23:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-06 15:08 XFS filesystem corruption Julien FERRERO
2013-03-06 15:15 ` Emmanuel Florac
2013-03-06 16:16   ` Julien FERRERO
2013-03-06 16:47     ` Ric Wheeler
2013-03-06 22:21     ` Emmanuel Florac
2013-03-06 23:12       ` Ric Wheeler
2013-03-07 13:15         ` Julien FERRERO
2013-03-07 13:40           ` Ric Wheeler
2013-03-07 23:22           ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-03-08 10:16             ` Julien FERRERO
2013-03-12  9:57             ` Martin Steigerwald
2013-03-08  8:39         ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-08 10:17           ` Julien FERRERO
2013-03-08 12:20           ` Ric Wheeler
2013-03-08 18:59             ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-09  9:11               ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-09 18:51                 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-10 22:45                   ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-10 23:54                     ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-11  0:50                       ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-11  9:29                         ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-11 22:45                           ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-11  9:25                       ` Julien FERRERO
2013-03-12 10:54                         ` Emmanuel Florac
2013-03-12 10:42           ` Martin Steigerwald
2013-03-12 22:16             ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-07  3:56 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-07 13:04   ` Julien FERRERO
2013-03-07 13:32     ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-03-10  2:50     ` Eric Sandeen
2013-03-10 22:11     ` Dave Chinner

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=20130307232214.GY23616@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=jferrero06@gmail.com \
    --cc=rwheeler@redhat.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /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