From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 00:39:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20080519223959.GA14602@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <482DDA56.6000301@redhat.com> <20080518211140.b29bee30.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200805191316.27551.chris.mason@oracle.com> <200805191439.36577.chris.mason@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Eric Sandeen , Theodore Tso , Andi Kleen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805191439.36577.chris.mason@oracle.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org > On Monday 19 May 2008, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > Here's a test workload that corrupts ext3 50% of the time on power fail > > testing for me. The machine in this test is my poor dell desktop (3ghz, > > dual core, 2GB of ram), and the power controller is me walking over and > > ripping the plug out the back. > > Here's a new version that still gets about corruptions 50% of the time, but > does it with fewer files by using longer file names (240 chars instead of 160 > chars). > > I tested this one with a larger FS (40GB instead of 2GB) and larger log (128MB > instead of 32MB). barrier-test -s 32 -p 1500 was still able to get a 50% > corruption rate on the larger FS. Hmm, this is worse than I'd have expected :( If it is that bad, I think we should really enable them by default... I can give your script a try on my test machine when I get back (which is next week). Honza -- Jan Kara SuSE CR Labs