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

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>
Cc: Al Boldi <a1426z@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>, David Chinner <dgc@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...>, Daniel Phillips <phillips@...>, <ric@...>, Rik van Riel <riel@...>, Theodore Tso <tytso@...>, Valerie Henson <val.henson@...>
Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 - 6:35 pm

I just had a talk with a colleague, John Palmer, who worked on disk drive 
design for about 5 years in the '90s and he gave me a very confident, 
credible explanation of some of the things we've been wondering about disk 
drive power loss in this thread, complete with demonstrations of various 
generations of disk drives, dismantled.

First of all, it is plain to see that there is no spring capable of 
parking the head, and there is no capacitor that looks big enough to 
possibly supply the energy to park the head, in any of the models I looked 
at.  Since parking of the heads is essential, we can only conclude that 
the myth of the kinetic energy of the disks being used for that (turned 
into electricity by the drive motor) is true.  The energy required is not 
just to move the heads to the parking zone, but to latch them there as 
well.

The myth is probably just that that energy is used for anything else; it's 
really easy to build a dumb circuit to park the heads using that power; 
keeping a computer running is something else.

The drive does drop a write in the middle of the sector if it is writing 
at the time of power loss.  The designers were too conservative to keep 
writing as power fails -- there's no telling what damage you might do.  So 
the drive cuts the power to the heads at the first sign of power loss.  If 
a write was in progress, this means there is one garbage sector on the 
disk.  It can't be read.

Trying to finish writing the sector is something I can image some drive 
model somewhere trying to do, but if even _some_ take the conservative 
approach, everyone has to design for it, so it doesn't matter.

A device might then reassign that sector the next time you try to write to 
it (after failing to read it), thinking the medium must be bad.  But there 
are various algorithms for deciding when to reassign a sector, so it might 
not too.

--
Bryan Henderson                     IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose CA                         Filesystems

--
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..., Bryan Henderson, (Fri Jan 18, 6:35 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)