On 03/22/2010 11:04 PM, Chris Webb wrote:
quoted text
> Chris Webb<chris@arachsys.com>  writes:
>
>    
>> Okay. What I was driving at in describing these systems as 'already broken'
>> is that they will already lose data (in this sense) if they're run on bare
>> metal with normal commodity SATA disks with their 32MB write caches on. That
>> configuration surely describes the vast majority of PC-class desktops and
>> servers!
>>
>> If I understand correctly, your point here is that the small cache on a real
>> SATA drive gives a relatively small time window for data loss, whereas the
>> worry with cache=writeback is that the host page cache can be gigabytes, so
>> the time window for unsynced data to be lost is potentially enormous.
>>
>> Isn't the fix for that just forcing periodic sync on the host to bound-above
>> the time window for unsynced data loss in the guest?
>>      
> For the benefit of the archives, it turns out the simplest fix for this is
> already implemented as a vm sysctl in linux. Set vm.dirty_bytes to 32<<20,
> and the size of dirty page cache is bounded above by 32MB, so we are
> simulating exactly the case of a SATA drive with a 32MB writeback-cache.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, the risk to guest OSes in this configuration
> should therefore be exactly the same as the risk from running on normal
> commodity hardware with such drives and no expensive battery-backed RAM.
>    

A host crash will destroy your data.  If  your machine is connected to a 
UPS, only a firmware crash can destroy your data.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/