Re: File Systems Compared

On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:55:14 -0800,
> Mark Lewis <mark(dot)lewis(at)mir3(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Anyone run their RAIDs with disk caches enabled, or is this akin to
>>> having fsync off?
>>
>> Disk write caches are basically always akin to having fsync off. The
>> only time a write-cache is (more or less) safe to enable is when
>> it is
>> backed by a battery or in some other way made non-volatile.
>>
>> So a RAID controller with a battery-backed write cache can enable its
>> own write cache, but can't safely enable the write-caches on the disk
>> drives it manages.
>
> This appears to be changing under Linux. Recent kernels have write
> barriers
> implemented using cache flush commands (which some drives ignore,
> so you
> need to be careful). In very recent kernels, software raid using
> raid 1
> will also handle write barriers. To get this feature, you are
> supposed to
> mount ext3 file systems with the barrier=1 option. For other file
> systems,
> the parameter may need to be different.

But would that actually provide a meaningful benefit? When you
COMMIT, the WAL data must hit non-volatile storage of some kind,
which without a BBU or something similar, means hitting the platter.
So I don't see how enabling the disk cache will help, unless of
course it's ignoring fsync.

Now, I have heard something about drives using their stored
rotational energy to flush out the cache... but I tend to suspect
urban legend there...
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)