Re: SU+J systems do not fsck themselves

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Matthias Andree
<matthias.andree_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 27.12.2011 22:53, schrieb David Thiel:
>> I've had multiple machines now (9.0-RC3, amd64, i386 and earlier
>> 9-CURRENT on ppc) running SU+J that have had unexplained panics and
>> crashes start happening relating to disk I/O. When I end up running a
>> full fsck, it keeps turning out that the disk is dirty and corrupted,
>> but no mechanism is in place with SU+J to detect and fix this. A bgfsck
>> never happens, but a manual fsck in single-user does indeed fix the
>> crashing and weird behavior. Others have tested their SU+J volumes and
>> found them to have errors as well. This makes me super nervous.
>
> The one thing I figured is that in the light of power outages, or
> crashing virtualization hosts, you really really really need to disable
> disk write caches, and this affects softupdates, journalling, asynch
> file systems, just about everything.
>
> The fact that makes matters worse is that journalling or softupdates
> allow you to mount a silently-corrupted file system, whereas the
> traditional UFS/UFS2 sync/asynch mounts will fsck themselves in the
> foreground, so they get fixed before the FS panics.
>
> So can you be sure that:
>
> - your driver, chip set and hard disk execute ordered writes in order,
>
> - your driver, chip set and hard disk actually write data to permanent
> storage BEFORE acknowledging a successful write?
>
> Whenever I fixed these issues, I had no more corruptions.
>
> For ata and sata, there are loader tunables you will want to set,
> hw.ata.wc=0 and kern.cam.ada.write_cache=0.
>
> If your drives are under ada, ad, or ahci related control, try these
> settings.  For SCSI, use camcontrol to turn the write cache off.
> softupdates is supposed to rectify most of the performance penalties
> incurred.
>
> Note also that you needed to set ahci_load=YES and atapicam_load=YES in
> 8.X, I've never bothered to check 7.X or 9.X WRT these settings.

This is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious what the effect of NCQ is on
softupdates? Since that too has the ability to reorder writes to disk,
should it be disabled in addition to cache?

Also, I would say that if you are using a hardware raid controller
with a BBU, then allowing the use of controller's cache and write-back
policy should be safe for use with softupdates. Any caching mechanism,
for that matter, that has a separate power supply source should be ok.
For example, the Intel 320 SSDs have a few on-board capacitors that
are used to flush the cache in the event of a power loss.

- Max