| |||||||||||||
ext4 and data lossext4 and data lossPosted Mar 13, 2009 0:47 UTC (Fri) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)In reply to: ext4 and data loss by dlang Parent article: ext4 and data loss I agree. An explicit barrier interface would be nice. Right now, however, rename-onto-an-existing-file almost always expresses the intent to create such a barrier, and the filesystem should respect that intent. In practice, it's nearly always worked that way. UFS with soft-updates guarantees data blocks are flushed before metadata ones. ZFS goes well beyond that and guarantees the relative ordering of every write. And the vast majority of the time, on ext3, an atomic rename without an fsync has the same effect as it does on these other filesystems. Other filesystems work like ext4 does, yes. Consider XFS, which has a much smaller user base than it should, given its quality. Why is that the case? It has a reputation for data loss --- and for good reason. IMHO, it's ignoring an implied barriers created by atomic renames! Forcing a commit of data before rename-onto-an-existing-file not only allows applications running today to work correctly, but creating an implied barrier on
(Log in to post comments)
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 4:12 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
POSIX defines an explicit barrier. It's called fsync().
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 7:57 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
And how often have you seen applications that do cross-directory rename()s
combine it with an fsync() of both the source and target directories, without which you are risking data loss?
I've never seen anyone do it. Even coreutils 7.1 doesn't do it.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 8:29 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
If you just rename(), then the file will continue to exist at either the old or the new location, even if there's a crash. That's guaranteed by rename() semantics. You can't cross filesystems with it, either, so there's no I/O of the actual data.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 14:50 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> If you just rename(), then the file will continue to exist at either the old or the new location, even
> if there's a crash. That's guaranteed by rename() semantics.
Is it? If you rename from /A/file to /B/file (both on the same filesystem), what happens if the OS
While I admit not having looked, I'll bet three cookies that's perfectly allowed by POSIX.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 15:06 UTC (Fri) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link] While I admit not having looked, I'll bet three cookies that's perfectly allowed by POSIX.You know what else is also allowed by POSIX?
rename must introduce a write barrier with respect to the data blocks for the file involved or we will lose. Not only will you not get every programmer and his dog to insert a gratuitous fsync in the write sequence, but doing so would actually be harmful to system performance.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 18:05 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] rename must introduce a write barrier with respect to the data blocks for the file involved or we will lose.But this is exactly the behaviour that ext4 isn't currently implementing (although it will be, by default). Perhaps we're in vociferous agreement, I don't know.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 22:54 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Not only will you not get every programmer and his dog to insert a gratuitous fsync in the write sequence, but doing so would actually be harmful to system performance.
fsync is not gratuitous. It is the D in ACID. As you mentioned yourself, rename requires only A form ACID - and that is exactly what you get.
But, Ted being a pragmatic man, reverted this to the old behaviour, simply because he knows there is a lot of broken software out there.
The fact that good applications that never lose data are already using the correct behaviour is case in point that this is how all applications should do it.
Performance implications of this approach are different than that of the old approach from ext3. In some cases ext4 will be faster. In others, it won't. But the main performance problem is bad applications that gratuitously write hundreds of small files to the file system. This is what is causing the real performance problem and should be fixed.
XFS received a lot of criticism, for what seem to be application problems. I wonder how many people lost files they were editing in emacs on that file system. I would venture a guess, not many.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 23:10 UTC (Fri) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link] It is the D in ACID. As you mentioned yourself, rename requires only A form ACID - and that is exactly what you get.That's my whole point: sometimes you want atomicity without durability. rename without fsync is how you express that. Except on certain recent filesystems, it's always worked that way. ext4 not putting a write barrier before rename is a regression.
But the main performance problem is bad applications that gratuitously write hundreds of small files to the file system.And why, pray tell, is writing files to a filesystem a bad thing? Writing plenty of small files is a perfectly legitimate use of the filesystem. If a filesystem buckles in that scenario, it's the fault of the filesystem, not the application. Blaming the application is blaming the victim.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 13, 2009 23:46 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> That's my whole point: sometimes you want atomicity without durability. rename without fsync is how you express that. Except on certain recent filesystems, it's always worked that way. ext4 not putting a write barrier before rename is a regression.
Just because something worked one way in one mode of one file system, doesn't mean it is the only way it can work, nor that applications should rely on it. If you want atomicity without durability, you get it on ext4, even without Ted's most recent patches (i.e. you get the empty file). If you want durability as well, you call fsync.
> And why, pray tell, is writing files to a filesystem a bad thing?
Writing out files that have _not_ changed is a bad thing. Or are you telling me that KDE changes all of its configuration files every few minutes?
BTW, the only reason fsync is slow on ext3, is because it does sync of all files. That's something that must be fixed, because it's nonsense.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 14, 2009 1:58 UTC (Sat) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link] Just because something worked one way in one mode of one file system...There's plenty of precedent. The original Unix filesystem worked that way. UFS works that way with soft-updates. ZFS works that way. There are plenty of decent filesystems that will provide atomic replace with rename.
...you get it on ext4, even without Ted's most recent patches (i.e. you get the empty file).Not from the perspective of the whole operation you don't. You set out trying to replace the contents of the file called /foo/bar, atomically. If /foo/bar ends up being a zero-length file, the intended operation wasn't atomic. That's like saying you don't need any synchronization for a linked list because the individual pointer modifications are atomic. Atomic replacement of a file without forcing an immediate disk sync is something a decent filesystem should provide. Creating a write barrier on rename is an elegant way to do that.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 15, 2009 6:01 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Creating a write barrier on rename is an elegant way to do that.
Except that rename(s), as specified, never actually guarantees that.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 15, 2009 6:04 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
That should have been rename(2), of course.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 14, 2009 12:53 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Sure. Fixing fsync() being sync() on ext3 is easy, as long as you don't
mind someone else's data showing up in your partially-synced files after reboot. Oh, wait, that's a security hole.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 15, 2009 6:03 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Actually, in ordered mode it should be made a no-op by default. The fact that it locks the machine up is a major regression.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 14, 2009 1:23 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
No, because rename() is only changing the metadata. The data of the file itself has not been changed by that call.
If you were to write new data to the file and THEN call rename, a crash right afterwards might mean that the updates were not saved. But the only way you could lose the file's original data here is if you opened it with O_TRUNC, which is really stupid if you don't fsync() immediately after closing.
ext4 and data loss Posted Mar 17, 2009 7:12 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] That's a bit heavy for a barrier though. A barrier just needs to ensure ordering, not actually ensure the data is on the disk. Those are distinct needs. For example, if I use mb(), I'm assured that other CPUs will see that every memory access before mb() completed before every memory access after mb(). That's it. The call to mb() doesn't ensure that the data gets written out of the cache to its final endpoint though. So, if I'm caching, say, a portion of the video display buffer, there's no guarantee I'll see the writes I made before the call to mb() appear on the screen. Typically, though, all that's needed and desired is a mechanism to guarantee things happen in a particular order so that you move from one consistent state to the next. The atomic-replace-by-rename carries this sort of implicit barrier in many peoples' minds, it seems. Delaying the rename until the data actually gets allocated and committed is all this application requires. It doesn't actually require the data to be on the disk. In other words, fsync() is too big a hammer. It's like flushing the CPU cache to implement mb(). Is there an existing API that just says "keep these things in this order" without actually also spinning up the hard drive? With the move to more battery powered machines and media that wears out the more it's written to, it seems like a bad idea to ask developers to force the filesystem to do more writes.
|
|||||||||||||