Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...>
Cc: Bryan Henderson <hbryan@...>, Al Boldi <a1426z@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>, David Chinner <dgc@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...>, Rik van Riel <riel@...>, Valerie Henson <val.henson@...>
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 6:45 pm

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:02:50PM -0500, Daniel Phillips wrote:

The problem isn't with the disk drive; it's from the DRAM, which tend
to be much more voltage sensitive than the hard drives --- so it's
quite likely that you could end up DMA'ing garbage from the memory.
In fact the fact that the disk drives lasts longer due to capacitors
on the board, rotational inertia of the platters, etc., is part of the
problem.

It was observed in the wild by SGI, many years ago on their hardware.
They later added extra capacitors on the motherboard and a powerfail
interrupt which caused the Irix to run around frantically shutting
down DMA's for a controlled shutdown.  Of course, PC-class hardware
has none of this.  My source for this was Jim Mostek, one of the
original Linux XFS porters.  He had given me source code to a test
program that would show this; basically zeroed out a region of disk,
then started writing series of patterns on that part of the, and you
you kicked out the power cord, and then see if there was any garbage
on the disk.  If you saw something that wasn't one of the patterns
being written to the disk, then you knew you had a problem.  I can't
find the program any more, but it wouldn't be hard to write.  

I do know that I have seen reports from many ext2 users in the field
that could only be explained by the hard drive scribbling garbage onto
the inode table.  Ext3 solves this problem because of its physical
block journaling.

						- Ted
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFD] Incremental fsck, Al Boldi, (Tue Jan 8, 5:22 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Alan, (Tue Jan 8, 5:31 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Andreas Dilger, (Wed Jan 9, 5:16 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Daniel Phillips, (Sat Jan 12, 7:55 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Rik van Riel, (Tue Jan 8, 5:41 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Al Boldi, (Wed Jan 9, 12:40 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, , (Wed Jan 9, 4:04 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Valerie Henson, (Wed Jan 9, 3:45 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Al Boldi, (Wed Jan 9, 7:52 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Theodore Tso, (Sat Jan 12, 10:51 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Daniel Phillips, (Sun Jan 13, 8:22 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Pavel Machek, (Sun Jan 13, 1:19 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Ric Wheeler, (Mon Jan 14, 9:04 pm)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Alan Cox, (Sun Jan 13, 1:41 pm)
Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Increm..., Szabolcs Szakacsits, (Thu Jan 17, 8:29 am)
Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Increm..., Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Jan 16, 12:38 pm)
Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Increm..., Theodore Tso, (Thu Jan 17, 6:45 pm)
Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Increm..., linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Fri Jan 18, 11:16 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Al Boldi, (Sun Jan 13, 7:05 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Rik van Riel, (Wed Jan 9, 10:44 am)
Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck, Al Boldi, (Thu Jan 10, 9:26 am)