Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Rob Landley
Date: Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:26 pm

On Monday 16 March 2009 07:28:47 Pavel Machek wrote:

Might be nice to note that in the doc.


There probably should be, but that's a separate issue.


Care to elaborate?  (When a filesystem is mounted RO, I'm not sure what 
happens to the pages that have already been dirtied...)


Fun.

When "please do not turn of your playstation until game save completes" 
honestly seems like the best solution for making the technology reliable, 
something is wrong with the technology.

I think I'll stick with rotating disks for now, thanks.


Good point, but I thought that's what journaling was for?

I'm aware that any flash filesystem _must_ be journaled in order to work 
sanely, and must be able to view the underlying erase granularity down to the 
bare metal, through any remapping the hardware's doing.  Possibly what's 
really needed is a "flash is weird" section, since flash filesystems can't be 
mounted on arbitrary block devices.

Although an "-O erase_size=128" option so they _could_ would be nice.  There's 
"mtdram" which seems to be the only remaining use for ram disks, but why there 
isn't an "mtdwrap" that works with arbitrary underlying block devices, I have 
no idea.  (Layering it on top of a loopback device would be most useful.)


It wasn't just one brand of disk cheating like that, and you'd have to ask him 
(or maybe Jens Axboe or somebody) whether the problem is still current.  I've 
been off in embedded-land for a few years now...

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is ..., Rob Landley, (Mon Mar 16, 12:26 pm)
Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is ..., Goswin von Brederlow, (Mon Mar 30, 8:06 am)
[patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:21 pm)
[patch] document that ext2 can't handle barriers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:27 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 3:33 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:40 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 3:59 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 4:37 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 4:48 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 4:56 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:06 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:12 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:12 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 5:26 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:26 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:28 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:38 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:39 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:44 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:45 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:50 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 6:17 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 6:19 pm)
Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable oper ..., Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Tue Aug 25, 7:53 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Tue Aug 25, 9:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Tue Aug 25, 9:24 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:21 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:22 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:25 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Wed Aug 26, 4:58 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Theodore Tso, (Wed Aug 26, 5:37 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Theodore Tso, (Wed Aug 26, 5:40 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Wed Aug 26, 6:11 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Wed Aug 26, 6:44 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Wed Aug 26, 7:45 am)
Re: MD/DM and barriers (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document c ..., Alasdair G Kergon, (Thu Aug 27, 11:09 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret, Florian Weimer, (Fri Aug 28, 12:11 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret, NeilBrown, (Fri Aug 28, 12:23 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 2:38 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 2:39 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ron Johnson, (Sat Aug 29, 4:47 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, jim owens, (Sat Aug 29, 9:12 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 11:49 pm)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Aug 30, 9:35 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 6:16 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 6:21 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Jesse Brandeburg, (Mon Aug 31, 10:49 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 11:31 am)