From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Disk (block) write strangeness
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:07:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020805190706.GD2671@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1028578632.18156.71.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:17:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 19:49, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> > *) Either the disk writes backwards (no I don't believe that)
> > *) Or the kernel is writing 256 B blocks (AFAIK it can't)
> > *) The disk has some internal magic that cause a power-loss during
> > a full block write to leave the first half of the block intact with
> > old data, and update the second half of a block correctly with new
> > data. (And I don't believe that either).
>
> You forgot to add
>
> *) or the disk internal logic bears no resemblance to the antiquated API
> it fakes for the convenience of interface hardware and software
Fair enough - that seems like a reasonable explanation.
On a side note - what guarantees does one have ? Any pointers to papers
or other material about this ?
For example, when updating a 3 to a 4 on the disk, could I end up with a
7 ? (having 00000011 on platter, starting write of 00000100, but
after having written the one high power fails and I now have 00000111).
The above example is simple - I doubt that it would happen - but how
much can and cannot happen ? I bet the Phase Tree (Tux2) people must
have thought about this at some point... I haven't had much luck with
Google on this one...
>
> Linux also won't neccessarily do write outs in order.
But in this case, I wonder why ?
It's one huge sequential write, from the beginning of a device and 50 MB
onwards. The write is submitted in one single write() every single
time. Why start going semi-backwards and chopping things up ?
I'm *very* certain that Linux does this non-sequentially, because the
disk might be causing the half-block oddity which really surprised me,
but the disk is not caching 20 MB of data internally, for sure.
Is this an elevator deficiency in 2.4.18, or am I just moaning for no
reason at all ? ;)
Thanks for the quick reply !
Cheers,
--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-05 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-05 18:49 Disk (block) write strangeness Jakob Oestergaard
2002-08-05 20:17 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-05 19:07 ` Jakob Oestergaard [this message]
2002-08-06 14:44 ` Kasper Dupont
2002-08-07 8:14 ` Helge Hafting
2002-08-07 11:43 ` Itai Nahshon
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=20020805190706.GD2671@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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