Writeback clearly defines what is and isn't protected, so yes, there are some 
guarantees.  There are also some guaranteed data-loss scenarios.

Even "Writeback (unsafe)" provides guarantees of a sort, but there is a big 
difference between it and simple "Writeback".

Choosing the appropriate caching policy is an exercise in risk management, not 
just blind adherence to  "my data must be safe at all times". 
With journaling filesystems on VM and on host and/or storage server, Writeback 
is often an acceptable choice for general purpose use.  No, it's not the 
absolute safest option, but it does provide *some* well-defined data integrity 

Your typical Linux VM operates in writeback mode inside the VM anyway; when it 
calls flush(2) or sync(2) (or whatever it's called nowadays), the block driver 
issues a SCSI flush command, which is interpreted by QEMU which issues a SCSI 
flush command, which is interpreted by the block storage layer which does a 
SCSI flush command, which is interpreted by the disks, which flush their own 
buffers and finally signal write-complete, which propagates back up the chain.
A VM in "writeback" mode operates identically to "writethrough" mode until QEMU 
determines that the client OS knows how to manage writeback caching properly 
through the use of barriers, flush commands, etc., at which point it enables 
writeback caching that is no more volatile than the write cache on your disk.  
(And, of course, this assumes that everything is battery-backed, and - ha, ha - 
that all the software and firmware and hardware involved is bug-free.)

Essentially, "writeback" provides under most circumstances, almost exactly the 
same data guarantees a standard Linux ext4 filesystem running with "defaults" 
mount options running against an HDD with write caching enabled gives you.  
Turning off write cache altogether usually results in a massive performance 
hit, and nearly every filesystem (and databases, independently) write data in 
such a way that they can recover from unexpected shutdown even in a "writeback" 

Having said all that - don't use "Writeback (unsafe)" for production data 
unless you want to lose a month of your life rebuilding a key database like I 
did :-(.

Ultimately, "Always Use DirectIO" is a religious belief, not a technically 
sound belief.  There are situations where it makes sense, and other situations 
where it doesn't.  The same can be said of *every single* setting - if there 
were only One True Correct Setting, it wouldn't be available as a user-settable 
option in the first place!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pve-user [mailto:pve-user-boun...@pve.proxmox.com] On
> Behalf Of Lindsay Mathieson
> Sent: October 11, 2016 23:12
> To: PVE User List <pve-user@pve.proxmox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Ceph Cache Tiering
> On 12 October 2016 at 13:28, Adam Thompson
> <athom...@athompso.net> wrote:
> > Not a bloody chance... WriteBack is the only thing that gives both
> acceptable performance characteristics and data guarantees.
> Eh? I didn't think writeback gave data guarantees, quite the opposite.
> --
> Lindsay
> _______________________________________________
> pve-user mailing list
> pve-user@pve.proxmox.com
> http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user

pve-user mailing list

Reply via email to