On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 09:20:21AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
It's actually not the case that fsck will complete the truncate for
file A. The problem is that while e2fsck is processing indirect
blocks in pass 1, the block which is marked as file A's indirect block
(but which actually
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:30:25PM -0800, Junfeng Yang wrote:
On 2/20/07, Valerie Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Google. (GoogleFS runs on top of ext2.)
It's surprising to know that... I guess they reply on GoogleFS's own
replication and checksumming for consistency.
Yep, they
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Valerie Henson writes:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 09:20:21AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
And POSIX also states that sync() is only required to schedule the
writes, but may return before the actual writing is done. Looks like
One more reason to form a group to
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 21:39 +, Valerie Henson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:30:25PM -0800, Junfeng Yang wrote:
On 2/20/07, Valerie Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Google. (GoogleFS runs on top of ext2.)
It's surprising to know that... I guess they reply on GoogleFS's own
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:54:54AM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Background: The eXplode file system checker found a bug in ext2 fsync
behavior. Do the following: truncate file A, create file B which
reallocates one of A's old indirect blocks, fsync file B. If you then
crash before file A's
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 09:20 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Another very heavyweight approach would be to simply force a full sync
of the filesystem whenever fysnc() is called. Not pretty, and without
the proper write ordering, the race is still potentially there.
I don't think this race is an
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:09:22 -0500, Dave Kleikamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 09:20 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Another very heavyweight approach would be to simply force a full sync
of the filesystem whenever fysnc() is called. Not pretty, and without
the proper write
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 10:59 -0500, sfaibish wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:09:22 -0500, Dave Kleikamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 09:20 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Another very heavyweight approach would be to simply force a full sync
of the filesystem whenever
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:39:02AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
It was my understanding from the persentation of Dawson that ext3 and jfs
have ame problem.
Hmm. If jfs has the problem, it is a bug. jfs is designed to handle
this correctly. I'm pretty sure I've fixed at least one bug
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:15:59 -0500, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:39:02AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
It was my understanding from the persentation of Dawson that ext3 and
jfs
have ame problem.
Hmm. If jfs has the problem, it is a bug. jfs is designed
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 11:11 -0800, Junfeng Yang wrote:
Hmm. If jfs has the problem, it is a bug. jfs is designed to
handle
this correctly. I'm pretty sure I've fixed at least one bug
that
eXplode has uncovered in the past. I'm not sure what was
It was my understanding from the persentation of Dawson that ext3 and jfs
have
same problem. It is not an ext2 only problem. Also whatever solution we
adopt
we need to be sure that we test it using the eXplode methodology.
apologies for dropping in randomly into the discussion: if this
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Junfeng Yang wrote:
Actually, we found a crash-during-recovery bug in ext3 too. It's a race
between resetting the journal super block and replay of the journal. This
bug was fixed by Ted long time ago (3 years?).
That was found in your original
Just some quick notes on possible ways to fix the ext2 fsync bug that
eXplode found. Whether or not anyone will bother to implement it is
another matter.
Background: The eXplode file system checker found a bug in ext2 fsync
behavior. Do the following: truncate file A, create file B which
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:54:54AM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Just some quick notes on possible ways to fix the ext2 fsync bug that
eXplode found. Whether or not anyone will bother to implement it is
another matter.
Background: The eXplode file system checker found a bug in ext2 fsync
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 07:31 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:54:54AM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Just some quick notes on possible ways to fix the ext2 fsync bug that
eXplode found. Whether or not anyone will bother to implement it is
another matter.
Background:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:26:22PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 07:31 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:54:54AM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Just some quick notes on possible ways to fix the ext2 fsync bug that
eXplode found. Whether or not
Val,
Maybe it is not only our (FS people) problem. We probably need to
bring the kernel people judge as ext2 and ext3 are the base Linux FS.
I add the kernel list for opinion.
/Sorin
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:54:54 -0500, Valerie Henson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just some quick notes on
18 matches
Mail list logo
