From: Ric Wheeler Subject: Re: Mentor for a GSoC application wanted (Online ext2/3 filesystem checker) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:11:29 -0400 Message-ID: <480CE6E1.20302@emc.com> References: <20080419185603.GA30449@mit.edu> <480A42F6.2030005@redhat.com> <20080419220432.GB30449@mit.edu> <87iqyc85q7.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080420234241.GB23292@shareable.org> <20080421080111.GD14446@one.firstfloor.org> <480CD9CD.70607@emc.com> <480CDBFD.30009@redhat.com> <480CE09D.4020402@emc.com> <20080421185849.GD20637@parisc-linux.org> Reply-To: ric@emc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Sandeen , Andi Kleen , Theodore Tso , Alexey Zaytsev , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]:28555 "EHLO mexforward.lss.emc.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755374AbYDUTUL (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:20:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080421185849.GD20637@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:44:45PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> Turning the drive write cache off is the default case for most RAID >> products (including our mid and high end arrays). >> >> I have not seen an issue with drives wearing out with either setting (cache >> disabled or enabled with barriers). >> >> The theory does make some sense, but does not map into my experience ;-) > > To be fair though, the gigabytes of NVRAM on the array perform the job > that the drive's cache would do on a lower-end system. The population I deal with personally is a huge number of 1U Centera nodes, each of which has 4 high capacity ATA or S-ATA drives (no NVRAM). We run with barriers (and write cache) enabled and I have not seen anything that leads me to think that this is an issue. One way to think about this is that even with barriers, relatively few operations actually turn into cache flushes (fsync's, journal syncs, unmounts?). Another thing to keep in mind is that drives are constantly writing and moving heads - disabling write cache or doing a flush just adds an incremental number of writes/head movements. Using barriers or disabling write cache matters only when you are doing a write intensive load, read intensive loads are not impacted (and random, cache miss reads will move the heads often). I just don't see it being an issue for any normal user (laptop user or desktop user) since the write workload more people have is a small fraction of what we run into in production data centers. Running your drives in a moderate way will probably help them last longer, but I am just not convinced that the write cache/barrier load makes much of a difference... ric