On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 09:04 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:18:36AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:53:13PM +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 09:25 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > You're assuming that only the DAX aware application accesses it's > > > files. users, backup programs, data replicators, fileystem > > > re-organisers (e.g. defragmenters) etc all may access the files > > > and > > > they may throw errors. What then? > > I'm not sure how this is any different from regular storage. If an > > application gets EIO, it's up to the app to decide what to do with > > that. > Sure - they'll fail. But the question I'm asking is that if the > application that owns the data is supposed to do error recovery, > what happens when a 3rd party application hits an error? If that > consumes the error, the the app that owns the data won't ever get a > chance to correct the error. > > This is a minefield - a 3rd party app that swallows and clears DAX > based IO errors is a data corruption vector. can yo imagine if > *grep* did this? The model that is being promoted here effectively > allows this sort of behaviour - I don't really think we > should be architecting an error recovery strategy that has the > capability to go this wrong.... > Just to address this bit - No. Any number of backup/3rd party application can hit the error and _fail_ but surely they won't try to _write_ the bad location? Only a write to the bad sector will clear it in this model - and until such time, all reads will just keep erroring out. This works for DAX/mmap based reads/writes too - mmap-stores won't/can't clear errors - you have to go through the block path, and in the altest version of my patch set, that has to be explicitly through O_DIRECT. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
