Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:44:30 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "Conrad E. Meyer" <cem@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Reducing UFS corruption from unclean shutdowns? Message-ID: <17B3F210-5101-449F-AE06-326F890C3C01@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfoEkRWqswsYj74STRByec41J5SWdvK%2BKcRqe5KJS6YV8w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOtMX2jPut4ve-Tr7DyikxXqnmqycyjEUpNmAiwUSXbQrK3iCA@mail.gmail.com> <C3016BDF-4B51-4A59-94F2-CCBD0DC4562E@samsco.org> <CAOtMX2jXiaOWpVdEg3_nBYinJWd=iwN_38hQ4eMOocgs8dMWhQ@mail.gmail.com> <F93827F6-1B99-4BDD-B245-C9594AD28ED7@samsco.org> <tkrat.bc0479d0867a8175@FreeBSD.org> <D7FC707D-B863-47F2-9580-C07881AAC866@samsco.org> <CAOtMX2heRbFONA4e7-buFgZeykCW13h1dC1DTVYOLFAier8wPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6CVpVZ2YaWzc7YbAoP=sY_NK4qcDbkyctDBW%2BOXoY6Du3WYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfoEkRWqswsYj74STRByec41J5SWdvK%2BKcRqe5KJS6YV8w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 4:37 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >=20 > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:33 PM Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:55 PM Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> = wrote: >>> I would've thought that immediately following a sync(8), the >>> filesystem would be consistent. Why do I still see errors after a >>> panic in files that were written before I sync()ed? >>> -Alan >>=20 >> Hi Alan, >>=20 >> Contra the name, sync(2) (sync(8)) isn't synchronous. It invokes >> VFS_SYNC() with MNT_NOWAIT across all mountpoints. >>=20 >=20 > Yes. Sync(2) just starts the I/O, but it may be delayed if there is a = lot > of dirty buffers. The other issue is that new buffers may be = dirtied=E2=80=A6 >=20 Still, the point of SU and SU+J is that the filesystem should not be damaged and require active repair on reboot, whether or not a sync or fsync was done. There=E2=80=99s certainly issues with disk = lying about out of order writes, POSIX sematics of unlinked files, and the inherent design of UFS superblock updates, but the problems that Alan reported should still be looked at, they=E2=80=99re not expected = and they undermine the usefulness of SU+J. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17B3F210-5101-449F-AE06-326F890C3C01>