From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:29:21 -0400 Message-ID: <200805192029.21688.chris.mason@oracle.com> References: <482DDA56.6000301@redhat.com> <200805191439.36577.chris.mason@oracle.com> <20080519223959.GA14602@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Jan Kara Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080519223959.GA14602@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Monday 19 May 2008, Jan Kara wrote: > > 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). That would be great, I'd like to confirm that my machine isn't the only one on the planet so easily broken ;) I was also able to trigger corruptions on XFS (one run out of two), so it is unlikely I'm seeing bugs in the ext3 replay or logging code. -chris