From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Data integrity built into the storage stack Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:37:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20090901133737.GA1852@ucw.cz> References: <87f94c370908291423ub92922ft2cceab9e34ac6207@mail.gmail.com> <20090901124403.GC1371@ucw.cz> <4A9D1F0F.9050802@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Greg Freemyer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: jim owens Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A9D1F0F.9050802@hp.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue 2009-09-01 09:18:07, jim owens wrote: > Pavel Machek wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> I do agree that we do have to be more prepared for collateral damage >>> scenarios. As we discussed at LS we have 4KB drives coming out that can >>> invalidate previously acknowledged I/Os if it gets a subsequent write >>> failure on a sector. And there's also the issue of fractured writes >> >> Hmmm, future will be interesting. >> >> 'ext3 expects disks to behave like disks from 1995' (alarming). > > NO... stop saying "ext3". All file systems expect that > what the disk tell us is the "sector size" (now know by > disk vendors as "block size") is "atomic". Yep, but ext3 disables barriers by default. So it has more than blocksize issue :-(. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html