On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:33:47PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > One of the main functions of softupdates is to order disk updates in such > > a way that the fs organizational integrity is maintained at all times. > > And we've recently found that this is simply not the case. The benefits > of SU are applicable to very specific environments; desktop PCs are the > main ones, offering great performance improvements there.
Thanks for pointing that out. Is this an acknowledged bug in SU? Is it still a problem in 7.0? > > Of course this doesn't protect against actual sector corruption, but if > > the disk is between writes at the time it loses power, the fs structure > > is supposed to still be internally consistent. At least that's my > > understanding of it. > > Yep, that's how I understand it as well. But this is a different topic > than what we were discussing 2-3 replies ago, talking about how a RAID > controller with cache + BBU is sufficient enough to guarantee data > integrity even when power is lost -- that's incorrect. The reason I brought it up is that it occurred to me that if the hardware raid card reorders disk i/o it would mess with SU's ordering. I wonder whether this was happening in the previous thread you referred to concerning fsck? Rich _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"