From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:22:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20080521112224.GD5028@ucw.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: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:48882 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756916AbYEULWd (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 07:22:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805191439.36577.chris.mason@oracle.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi! > > > > 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. Ok, Andrew, is this enough to get barrier patch applied and stop corrupting data in default config, or do you want some more testing? I guess 20% benchmark regression is bad, but seldom and impossible to debug data corruption is worse... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html