On Friday, 2 February 2024 21:47:00 GMT Dominique Martinet wrote:
> So I think Florian is correct in that barriers won't be issued on
> these disks, and if they internally have such a cache it'd probably be
> unsafe...
>
> Now does the disk itself know that it's in such an enclosure and
>
Barry Scott wrote on Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:07:46PM +:
> > On 2 Feb 2024, at 17:58, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > The second one is a standard SATA drive in an USB enclosure, and those
> > have write-reordering caches, as far as I understand it.
>
> We need a kernel storage expert to tell us
> On 2 Feb 2024, at 17:58, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> The second one is a standard SATA drive in an USB enclosure, and those
> have write-reordering caches, as far as I understand it.
We need a kernel storage expert to tell us the definitive truth on this stuff.
I may be out of date on this
* Barry Scott:
> As I understand it the kernel will request that writes are not
> cached. Which means that journaling file systems do in fact work well.
The kernel messages I get look like this:
kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 15814656 512-byte
> On 2 Feb 2024, at 11:30, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Yes, the kernel assumes that there are no such caches, but I think in
> practice there are. I think this means that journaling file systems are
> not working correctly, in the sense that you do not get just user data
> loss if the device is
On Wednesday, 31 January 2024 06:43:00 GMT Abyss Ether via devel wrote:
> I created a simple PoC udev rule to mount USB Storage devices with the "sync
> option. Available here :
> https://github.com/larina3315/personal-stuff/blob/main/linux/10-usb-storage
> .rules
> Currently, USB Storage devices
>> On 31 Jan 2024, at 11:41, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> I think this is somewhat counteracted by Linux treating USB mass storage
>> devices as not having write caches (according to dmesg at least).
>> Doesn't this mean that those costly barriers won't be used?
>
> Isn’t that a reference to
On 2/2/24 10:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Another possible approach: run "sync -f" every 3 seconds.
While that should make sure the unwritten data hits the disk it doesn't
put the superblock in order to mark it as "this fs has been cleanly
unmounted". That's quite limiting.
Sure.
Sounds
On Fr, 02.02.24 10:10, Roberto Ragusa (m...@robertoragusa.it) wrote:
> On 1/31/24 09:41, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > This tanks performance when writing to the device though. There's a
> > much better approach however: use an automount in between with a very
> > short timeout (2s or so). This
> On 31 Jan 2024, at 11:41, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> I think this is somewhat counteracted by Linux treating USB mass storage
> devices as not having write caches (according to dmesg at least).
> Doesn't this mean that those costly barriers won't be used?
Isn’t that a reference to caches
On 1/31/24 09:41, Lennart Poettering wrote:
This tanks performance when writing to the device though. There's a
much better approach however: use an automount in between with a very
short timeout (2s or so). This means the mount appears continously
available from application PoV but the backing
On 1/31/24 00:57, Larina Loriasel via devel wrote:
We approach this problem from a different angle: the user is supposed
to sync the filesystem before removing. Graphical environments have
an "eject" button, and for non-graphical environments, the user
just needs to do a sync manually.
I am
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:36 AM Leon Fauster via devel
wrote:
>
> Am 31.01.24 um 09:57 schrieb Larina Loriasel via devel:
> >> 'sync' has some strong downsides though: various operations become
> >> painfully slow (this depends a lot on the hardware and its age, and
> >> the history of previous
Such a way to dynamically mount and perform reads/writes to the device only
when needed is truly an ideal solution, looking forward to udisks implementing
such a feature.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
On 1/31/24 07:43, Abyss Ether via devel wrote:
I created a simple PoC udev rule to mount USB Storage devices with the "sync
option.
Available here :
https://github.com/larina3315/personal-stuff/blob/main/linux/10-usb-storage.rules
Currently, USB Storage devices are mounted without the "sync"
Am 31.01.24 um 09:57 schrieb Larina Loriasel via devel:
'sync' has some strong downsides though: various operations become
painfully slow (this depends a lot on the hardware and its age, and
the history of previous writes, etc.), write operations block read
operations, and the total number of
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:43:00AM -, Abyss Ether via devel wrote:
>> I created a simple PoC udev rule to mount USB Storage devices with the "sync
>> option.
>> Available here :
>>
> 'sync' has some strong downsides though: various operations become
> painfully slow (this depends a lot on the hardware and its age, and
> the history of previous writes, etc.), write operations block read
> operations, and the total number of writes may be increased, leading
> to more wear on
On Mi, 31.01.24 06:43, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
wrote:
> I created a simple PoC udev rule to mount USB Storage devices with the "sync
> option.
> Available here :
> https://github.com/larina3315/personal-stuff/blob/main/linux/10-usb-storage.rules
>
> Currently, USB
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:43:00AM -, Abyss Ether via devel wrote:
> I created a simple PoC udev rule to mount USB Storage devices with the "sync
> option.
> Available here :
> https://github.com/larina3315/personal-stuff/blob/main/linux/10-usb-storage.rules
>
> Currently, USB Storage
I created a simple PoC udev rule to mount USB Storage devices with the "sync
option.
Available here :
https://github.com/larina3315/personal-stuff/blob/main/linux/10-usb-storage.rules
Currently, USB Storage devices are mounted without the "sync" option, causing
their writes to be cached.
This
21 matches
Mail list logo
