Message-ID: <4C7C170D.9090409@vlnb.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:39:41 +0400
From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, jaxboe@fusionio.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@suse.de, tytso@mit.edu,
        chris.mason@oracle.com, swhiteho@redhat.com,
        konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        rwheeler@redhat.com, hare@suse.de, neilb@suse.de,
        rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mst@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org,
        snitzer@redhat.com, k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/30] ext4: do not send discards as barriers
References: <1282751267-3530-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1282751267-3530-27-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20100825155842.GA3229@lst.de> <20100825160032.GC3229@lst.de> <4C753D75.2010305@kernel.org> <20100825200223.GE2738@quack.suse.cz> <4C76250B.6060800@kernel.org> <20100827173147.GA12374@quack.suse.cz> <x4939tv98n8.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> <20100830202034.GB12226@quack.quadriga.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100830202034.GB12226@quack.quadriga.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1222
Lines: 25

Jan Kara, on 08/31/2010 12:20 AM wrote:
> On Mon 30-08-10 15:56:43, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jan Kara<jack@suse.cz>  writes:
>>
>>>    An update: I've set up an ext4 barrier testing in KVM - run fsstress,
>>> kill KVM at some random moment and check that the filesystem is consistent
>>> (kvm is run in cache=writeback mode to simulate disk cache). About 70 runs
>>
>> But doesn't your "disk cache" survive the "power cycle" of your guest?
>    Yes, you're right. Thinking about it now the test setup was wrong because
> it didn't refuse writes to the VM's data partition after the moment I
> killed KVM. Thanks for catching this. I will probably have to use the fault
> injection on the host to disallow writing the device at a certain moment.
> Or does somebody have a better option?

Have you considered to setup a second box as an iSCSI target (e.g. with 
iSCSI-SCST)? With it killing the connectivity is just a matter of a 
single iptables command + a lot more options.

Vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/