On Wednesday 26 August 2009 07:28:13 Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 01:17:52PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Metadata takes up such a small part of the disk that fscking > > > it and finding it to be OK is absolutely no guarantee that > > > the data on the filesystem has not been horribly mangled. > > > > > > Personally, what I care about is my data. > > > > > > The metadata is just a way to get to my data, while the data > > > is actually important. > > > > Personally, I care about metadata consistency, and ext3 documentation > > suggests that journal protects its integrity. Except that it does not > > on broken storage devices, and you still need to run fsck there. > > Caring about metadata consistency and not data is just weird, I'm > sorry. I can't imagine anyone who actually *cares* about what they > have stored, whether it's digital photographs of child taking a first > step, or their thesis research, caring about more about the metadata > than the data. Giving advice that pretends that most users have that > priority is Just Wrong. I thought the reason for that was that if your metadata is horked, further writes to the disk can trash unrelated existing data because it's lost track of what's allocated and what isn't. So back when the assumption was "what's written stays written", then keeping the metadata sane was still darn important to prevent normal operation from overwriting unrelated existing data. Then Pavel notified us of a situation where interrupted writes to the disk can trash unrelated existing data _anyway_, because the flash block size on the 16 gig flash key I bought retail at Fry's is 2 megabytes, and the filesystem thinks it's 4k or smaller. It seems like what _broke_ was the assumption that the filesystem block size >= the disk block size, and nobody noticed for a while. (Except the people making jffs2 and friends, anyway.) Today we have cheap plentiful USB keys that act like hard drives, except that their write block size isn't remotely the same as hard drives', but they pretend it is, and then the block wear levelling algorithms fuzz things further. (Gee, a drive controller lying about drive geometry, the scsi crowd should feel right at home.) Now Pavel's coming back with a second situation where RAID stripes (under certain circumstances) seem to have similar granularity issues, again breaking what seems to be the same assumption. Big media use big chunks for data, and media is getting bigger. It doesn't seem like this problem is going to diminish in future. I agree that it seems like a good idea to have BIG RED WARNING SIGNS about those kind of media and how _any_ journaling filesystem doesn't really help here. So specifically documenting "These kinds of media lose unrelated random data if writes to them are interrupted, journaling filesystems can't help with this and may actually hide the problem, and even an fsck will only find corrupted metadata not lost file contents" seems kind of useful. That said, ext3's assumption that filesystem block size always >= disk update block size _is_ a fundamental part of this problem, and one that isn't shared by things like jffs2, and which things like btrfs might be able to address if they try, by adding awareness of the real media update granularity to their node layout algorithms. (Heck, ext2 has a stripe size parameter already. Does setting that appropriately for your raid make this suck less? I haven't heard anybody comment on that one yet...) Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
