Re: document ext3 requirements

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

On Sun 2009-01-04 13:38:34, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:35:41PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> > Ext3 means either hardware that supports barriers (not sure how to  
> > check
> 
> Pretty much all modern disk drives supports barriers.  And note that
> w/o barriers ext3 has worked pretty well.  *If* you have a workload
> pushes your system into a mode which where it is very low on memory,
> so it is constantly paging/thrashing and you have a workload which is
> metadata intensive, and you crash the machine while it is thrashing,
> it is possible to end up in a situation where your filesystem is
> corrupted and you have to use e2fsck to correct the filesystem.  In

Are you sure you need to have thrashing? AFAICT metadata + fsync heavy
workload should be enough... and there were scripts to easily repeat
that.

> > Does this requirement apply to other  
> > journaling filesystems? Do I need journaling at all, given that I have  
> > an UPS on my desktop and a battery in the laptop?
> 
> Which requirement?  Barriers?  Most journaling filesystems simply
> enable barriers by default.  
> 
> And journalling is useful so that if your system crashes, say due to
> suspend and resume not working out, or the battery runs dry without
> your noticing it, you can avoid running fsck at boot time.  It's
> really more about shorting the boot time after a crash more than
> anything else.

Actually, journalling with barriers=0 should still be "safe" in case of
kernel crashes (*), right? Because if just kernel is dead, disk
firmware will still write the cache back, AFAICT.
									Pavel

(*) kernel crashes that do not involve writing random garbage to disk.
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html