Hi! > >> > This is not about barriers (that should be different topic). Atomic > >> > write means that either whole sector is written, or nothing at all is > >> > written. Because raid5 needs to update both master data and parity at > >> > the same time, I don't think it can guarantee this during powerfail. > > Actualy raid5 should have no problem with a power failure during > normal operations of the raid. The parity block should get marked out > of sync, then the new data block should be written, then the new > parity block and then the parity block should be flaged in sync. > > >> Good point, but I thought that's what journaling was for? > > > > I believe journaling operates on assumption that "either whole sector > > is written, or nothing at all is written". > > The real problem comes in degraded mode. In that case the data block > (if present) and parity block must be written at the same time > atomically. If the system crashes after writing one but before writing > the other then the data block on the missng drive changes its > contents. And for example with a chunk size of 1MB and 16 disks that > could be 15MB away from the block you actualy do change. And you can > not recover that after a crash as you need both the original and > changed contents of the block. > > So writing one sector has the risk of corrupting another (for the FS) > totally unconnected sector. No amount of journaling will help > there. The raid5 would need to do journaling or use battery backed > cache. Thanks, I updated my notes. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html