linux-ext4 - Re: Nobarrier mount option (was: Re: File system robustness)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:51:31 +0200
From:   Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     "Alan C. Assis" <acassis@...il.com>,
        Bjørn Forsman <bjorn.forsman@...il.com>,
        Kai Tomerius <kai@...erius.de>, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Nobarrier mount option (was: Re: File system robustness)

Theodore Ts'o - 21.07.23, 15:35:26 CEST:
> > At least that is what I thought was the background for not doing the
> > "nobarrier" thing anymore: Let the storage below decide whether it
> > is safe to basically ignore cache flushes by answering them (almost)
> > immediately.
> 
> The problem is that the storage below (e.g., the HDD) has no idea that
> all of this redundancy exists.  Only the system adminsitrator who is
> configuring the file sysetm will know.  And if you are runninig a
> hyper-scale cloud system, this kind of custom made system will be
> much, MUCH, cheaper than buying a huge number of $$$ EMC storage
> arrays.

Okay, that is reasonable.

Thanks for explaining.

-- 
Martin