[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Lost file-system story
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Donald Allen
> I should have sent this to the mailing list as well as David. Google
> has fixed something that wasn't broke -- gmail. They've introduced a
> new UI that I haven't gotten used to yet ...
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Donald Allen <donaldcallen%gmail.com@localhost>
> Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Lost file-system story
> To: David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, David Holland
> <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:58:25AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> > With the filesystem mounted async *nothing* pushes out most
>> > metadata updates,
>> If this is really true, it's a bug and should be fixed.
> It may very well be true. I just did the following:
> I brought up my test laptop, running 5.1 GENERIC, with /home mounted
> async,noatime. I created a new file in my home directory. I should
> note that when I ZZ'ed out of vi, the disk light flashed momentarily,
> and I could hear the disk doing something. I did an ls -lt | head and
> the new file was there. I waited just under a minute (to let syncs
> happen; this is longer than any of the sysctl vfs.sync.delays, which I
> assume are in seconds; the man page doesn't say) and then I pulled the
> plug (no battery in the machine). On restart, I got no fsck errors,
> but the new file was not in my home directory. I then repeated this
> test, waiting a little over a minute this time. Same result, the new
> file was gone (this time I got fsck errors). Then I did the test a
> third time, but this time I did a sync before pulling the plug. On
> restart, I still got some fsck errors that were fixed, but the new
> file was present.
> This does suggest that the meta-data is not being written, at least
> within a minute or so of creating a new file.
> One thing I think we have not discussed much or at all in this thread
> is that the filesystem surviving a crash and how much data you lose
> when it does survive are separate issues. The experiments I did
> yesterday demonstrate that a NetBSD ffs async-mounted filesystem,
> together with its fsck, *can* survive a crash in bad circumstances --
> lots of write activity at the time of the crash. We don't know what
> the probability of survival is, just that it's > 0.
> What I did yesterday also does not address loss of data. If Simon is
> correct and NetBSD is just not writing metadata until sync is
> explicitly called, then you could have a system up for days or weeks
> and lose as many as all of the files created in an async filesystem
> since the last re-boot. We don't know definitively what it's doing
> yet, but I think I've demonstrated that it's not writing meta-data
> within one minute windows. I will do some more playing with this,
> waiting longer and will report what I find. We also know from this
> morning's tests that a user-called sync does get the meta-data
> written, reducing the amount of data lost in a crash that the
> filesystem survives. So those who advocated periodically calling sync
> in a loop (Christos first suggested this to me in a private email) are
> correct -- it's necessary if you are going to use async mounting.
I repeated the test without the sync, but waited 15 minutes after
creating the new file before killing the power. When the system came
up, I got fsck errors that were fixed, and the new file I created 15
minutes before pulling the plug was not present. Whether this is
intentional or a bug, I agree with David Holland -- it's wrong and
should be fixed.
> More later ...
>> David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |