From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932258AbZHYW6P (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:58:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932215AbZHYW6O (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:58:14 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:35201 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932166AbZHYW6N (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:58:13 -0400 From: Neil Brown To: Theodore Tso Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:58:41 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19092.27809.480243.979274@notabene.brown> Cc: Pavel Machek , Ric Wheeler , Florian Weimer , Goswin von Brederlow , Rob Landley , kernel list , Andrew Morton , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible In-Reply-To: message from Theodore Tso on Monday August 24 References: <20090323104525.GA17969@elf.ucw.cz> <87ljqn82zc.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <20090824093143.GD25591@elf.ucw.cz> <82k50tjw7u.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20090824130125.GG23677@mit.edu> <20090824195159.GD29763@elf.ucw.cz> <4A92F6FC.4060907@redhat.com> <20090824205209.GE29763@elf.ucw.cz> <4A930160.8060508@redhat.com> <20090824212518.GF29763@elf.ucw.cz> <20090824223915.GI17684@mit.edu> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 X-face: [Gw_3E*Gng}4rRrKRYotwlE?.2|**#s9D X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday August 24, tytso@mit.edu wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:25:19PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > I have to admit that I have not paid enough attention to this specifics > > > of your ext3 + flash card issue - is it the ftl stuff doing out of order > > > IO's? > > > > The problem is that flash cards destroy whole erase block on unplug, > > and ext3 can't cope with that. > > Sure --- but name **any** filesystem that can deal with the fact that > 128k or 256k worth of data might disappear when you pull out the flash > card while it is writing a single sector? A Log structured filesystem could certainly be written to deal with such a situation, providing by 'deal with' you mean 'only loses data that has not yet been acknowledged to the application'. Of course the filesystem would need clear visibility into exactly how these blocks are positioned. I've been playing with just such a filesystem for some time (never really finding enough time) with the goal of making it work over RAID5 with no data risk due to power loss. One day it will be functional enough for others to try.... It is entirely possible that NILFS could be made to meet that requirement, but I haven't made time to explore NILFS so I cannot be sure. NeilBrown