We ran our experiment on top of a very simple RAM disk which does not
have any caches or anything of that sort.
The dmesg log is at http://keeda.stanford.edu/dmesg
The resultant images are at:
If you run fsck -p on them, fsck will not be able to recover, while
fsck without the -p option will be able to.
On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Can Sar wrote:
[ ... ]
Would you consider it an error if the -p option does not fix
inconsistencies caused by a simple power failure, without any
hardware or software corruption?
You're asking an interesting question, but the issue of data
integrity depends not only on the software which comprises the OS,
but also on the hardware being used.
In particular, the system depends upon the hard drives to reliably
report when data being written actually has been; SCSI drives,
using tagged command queuing, especially in conjunction with a
battery-backup which ensures the drive stays up long enough to
flush it's write cache even if system power is removed, will tend
to fare pretty well.
IDE drives, by contrast, have a bad habit of lying about whether
data has actually been written to the disk itself rather than
simply making it to the write cache on the drive. (Such drives
ignore the ATA "FLUSH CACHE" command, specificly.)
In other words, showing that a filesystem can become inconsistent
in a fashion that "fsck -p" cannot correct is interesting and a
concern regardless of the circumstances, but showing it in cases
where you are using battery-backed drives and/or SCSI rather than
IDE is a lot more meaningful. If you are using IDE devices, your
testing will be more meaningful if you disable the IDE write-cache
entirely. Also, you should put your results somewhere, perhaps on
a webpage with links to the filesystem images and a complete dmesg
so that the OS version and hardware being used is well-documented.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"