similar to: fsync, ext3, raid (md) 1, write barriers and PATA caching

Hi, Are SQLite users that are worried about losing data that has been committed (fsynced) better off setting data=journal than data=ordered (or even data=writeback)? The context is trying to reduce the number of writes to a flash file-system without sacrificing data integrity in the event of a power failure or OS crash. Thanks, Dan Kennedy.

Hello, On my home server (Debian etch, custom 2.6.28.2 kernel), I am using ext3 for both root and /home filesystems, with barriers enabled to prevent corruption caused by my PATA disk write cache. Looking for a better performance, I have also set the commit=nr option as described in linux-2.6.28.2/Documentation/filesystems/ext3.txt, so that I now have: niko at petole:~$ mount -t ext3

Hi all, We are building a new system which is going to use ext3 FS. We would like to know more about the behavior of ext3 in the case of failure. But before I procede, I would like to share more information about our future system. * Our application always does an fsync on files * When symbolic links (more specifically fast symlink) are created, the host directory is also fsync'ed. * Our

On 06/27/2011 07:46 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:53:37 +0200 Nico Schottelius > <nico-lkml-20110623@schottelius.org> wrote: > >> Good morning devs, >> >> I''m wondering whether the raid- and volume-management-builtin of btrfs is >> actually a sane idea or not. >> Currently we do have md/device-mapper support for raid >>

This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way to get all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the disks are SSD for...something, I didn''t ask :). I''ve tested this with the btrfs-progs patch that accompanies this patch. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 64

Where in the ext2/3 code does it know that a block on the disk is now free to reuse? Thanks, Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/attachments/20080916/7b737a93/attachment.htm>

After some extra reading about LVM snapshots & Gluster, I think I can conclude it may be a bad idea to use it on big storage bricks. I understood that the LVM maximum metadata, used to store the snapshots data, is about 16GB. So if I have a brick with a volume arount 10TB (for example), daily snapshots, files changing ~100GB : the LVM snapshot is useless. LVM's snapshots doesn't

On 10/11/2017 09:50 AM, ML wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've read on the gluster & redhat documentation, that it seems recommended to > use XFS over LVM before creating & using gluster volumes. > > Sources : > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Storage/3/html/Administration_Guide/Formatting_and_Mounting_Bricks.html > >

When designing a filesystem, is fragmentation really an issue if access to the disk can be done using scatter-gather DMA techics ?

Hi - I'm searching for file system corruption tool, say it inject disk-errors like multiply owned blocks etc. Later an integrity scan process (like e2fsck) will verify on-disk layout and fix these errors. I'd like to read/understand such tools before writing one for an proprietary on-disk file system. Do we have such tools for ext{2,3,4}fs ? Thanks for any help or pointers! -- ----

Dear all, While going through the archived mailing list and crawling along the wiki I didn''t find any clues if there would be any optimizations in Btrfs to make efficient use of functions and features that today exist on enterprise class storage arrays. One exception to that was the ssd option which I think can make a improvement on read and write IO''s however when attached to

Hi All, On several of my servers I seem to have a high rate of server crashes do to file system errors. So I have some questions related to this: Is there any Mean Time Between Failure ( MTBF) data for the ext3 file-system? Does increased partition size cause a higher risk of the partition being corrupted? If so, is there any data on the ratio between partition size and the likely hood of

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

(... to Nabble Ext3:Users - reposted by me after I joined the ext3-users mailing list - sorry for the dup...) A bit of a rambling subject there but I am trying to figure out if it is more efficient at runtime to have few very large file systems (8 TB) vs a larger number of smaller file systems. The file systems will hold many small files. My preference is to have a larger number of smaller file

Hi everyone, I've read on the gluster & redhat documentation, that it seems recommended to use XFS over LVM before creating & using gluster volumes. Sources : https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Storage/3/html/Administration_Guide/Formatting_and_Mounting_Bricks.html http://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Setting%20Up%20Volumes/ My point is :

As part of memory barrier cleanup, this patchset extends checkpatch to make it easier to stop incorrect memory barrier usage. This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the pull request including the series. changes from v3: rename smp_barrier_stems to barrier_stems as suggested by Julian Calaby. add (?: ... ) around a

As part of memory barrier cleanup, this patchset extends checkpatch to make it easier to stop incorrect memory barrier usage. This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the pull request including the series. changes from v3: rename smp_barrier_stems to barrier_stems as suggested by Julian Calaby. add (?: ... ) around a

As part of memory barrier cleanup, this patchset extends checkpatch to make it easier to stop incorrect memory barrier usage. This applies on top of my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the next version of the series. Michael S. Tsirkin (3): checkpatch.pl: add missing memory barriers checkpatch: check for __smp outside barrier.h checkpatch: add virt

As part of memory barrier cleanup, this patchset extends checkpatch to make it easier to stop incorrect memory barrier usage. This applies on top of my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the next version of the series. Michael S. Tsirkin (3): checkpatch.pl: add missing memory barriers checkpatch: check for __smp outside barrier.h checkpatch: add virt

On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 13:37 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for > presence of a comment. Are these virt_ barriers used anywhere? I see some virtio_ barrier like uses.