From: Virtbie <virtbie@shiftmail.org>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Is cache=writeback safe yet?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:43:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F426A16.9090609@shiftmail.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F42616D.30800@codemonkey.ws>
On 02/20/12 16:06, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/20/2012 08:18 AM, Virtbie wrote:
>> Dear qemuers,
>> thanks for your exellent software.
>>
>> I would like to use cache=writeback, but I still can't understand if
>> this is
>> safe or not in case of power loss.
>
> "Safe" is too simplistic of a view. The documentation in
> qemu-options.hx probably needs to be revisited.
>
> cache=writeback emulates a large disk cache much the same as every
> modern hard drive has a builtin cache.
>
> The only real difference is that the host cache is very, very large.
> Some modern file systems did not take the necessary steps to ensure
> consistency when a volatile write cache is present (ext3 up until very
> recently when barrier=1 became default).
>
> In practice, this didn't create a huge issue because disk write caches
> are flushed often. Ted T'so has written a lot about the practical
> bits here.
>
> But since the host cache is very large, and may not be flushed for
> many minutes after the initial write, this can exacerbate the problem.
>
> In short, if you're using a recent kernel with ext3 or ext4,
> cache=writeback is absolutely safe. If you're using an older version
> of ext3, cache=writeback is still safe but ext3 itself isn't.
> cache=writeback can make the situation worse.
>
> cache=writethrough presents a non-volatile cache which makes even
> older ext3 filesystems safe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
Great explanation Anthony,
may I still ask:
1)
Is WCE + volatile flag exposed to the guest, by all three virtual devices:
- virtio
- scsi
- ide
?
(if not, I still don't understand how this works)
2) Is there a minimum guest kernel and a minimum viostor Windows driver
version, to see such WCE+volatile flag in a virtio disk, so that the
guest OS can actually see the cache?
Because I can't seem to find such flag for a virtio disk on a linux
2.6.38 guest and that seems serious to me.
Is it visible somewhere in /sys hierarchy? Or is 2.6.38 too old?
Thank you
Vb.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-20 15:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-20 14:18 [Qemu-devel] Is cache=writeback safe yet? Virtbie
2012-02-20 15:06 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-02-20 15:43 ` Virtbie [this message]
2012-02-20 17:52 ` Virtbie
2012-02-20 15:20 ` Kevin Wolf
2012-02-20 15:29 ` Peter Maydell
2012-02-20 15:56 ` Kevin Wolf
2012-02-20 16:08 ` Peter Maydell
2012-02-20 17:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-02-20 17:10 ` Peter Maydell
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=4F426A16.9090609@shiftmail.org \
--to=virtbie@shiftmail.org \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).