How do backup programs make sure they get a consistent copy of a file, when file locks in linux mostly are advisory?
For example if some other process do not respect file locks and writes to a file, how can I create a consistent copy of that file?
This is quite an interesting topic, the modern way seems to be to use a filesystem snapshot; another way is to use a block-device snapshot.
In any case, some kind of snapshot is the best solution. Zfs has snapshots (but is not available as a "first class" filesystem under Linux), as does btrfs (which is quite new).
Alternatively, a LVM volume can have a block-level snapshot taken (which can then be mounted readonly in a temporary location while a backup is taken).
If you had mandatory file locks, then a backup program would disrupt normal operation of (for example) a database so that it was not able to work correctly. Moreover, unless there was a mechanism to atomically take a mandatory lock on every file in the filesystem, there would be no way to take a consistent backup (i.e. with every file as it was at the same moment).
Related
When writing software which needs to cache data on disk, is there a way in libc, or a way which is specific to a certain file system (such as ext4), to create a file and flag it as suitable to be deleted automatically (by the kernel) if the partition becomes almost full?
There’s something similar for memory pages: madvise(…, MADV_FREE).
Some systems achieve this by writing a daemon which monitors the partition fullness, and which manually deletes certain pre-determined paths once it exceeds a certain fill level. I’d like to avoid this if possible, as it’s not very scalable: each application would have to notify the daemon of new cache paths as they are created, which may be frequently. If this were in-kernel, a single flag could be held on each inode indicating whether it’s a cache file.
Having a standardised daemon for this would be acceptable as well. At the moment it seems like different major systems integrators all invent their own.
You can use crontab job, and look for specific file extension and delete it. You can even filter based on time and leave the files created in last n minutes.
If you are ok with this, let me know, I will add more details here.
Suppose I have a deleted file in my unallocated space on a linux partition and i want to retrieve it.
Suppose I can get the start address of the file by examining the header.
Is there a way by which I can estimate the number of blocks to be analyzed hence (this depends on the size of the image.)
In general, Linux/Unix does not support recovering deleted files - if it is deleted, it should be gone. This is also good for security - one user should not be able to recover data in a file that was deleted by another user by creating huge empty file spanning almost all free space.
Some filesystems even support so called secure delete - that is, they can automatically wipe file blocks on delete (but this is not common).
You can try to write a utility which will open whole partition that your filesystem is mounted on (say, /dev/sda2) as one huge file and will read it and scan for remnants of your original data, but if file was fragmented (which is highly likely), chances are very small that you will be able to recover much of the data in some usable form.
Having said all that, there are some utilities which are trying to be a bit smarter than simple scan and can try to be undelete your files on Linux, like extundelete. It may work for you, but success is never guaranteed. Of course, you must be root to be able to use it.
And finally, if you want to be able to recover anything from that filesystem, you should unmount it right now, and take a backup of it using dd or pipe dd compressed through gzip to save space required.
Hello I am a newbie to kernel programming. I am writing a small kernel module
that is based on wrapfs template to implement a backup mechanism. This is
purely for learning basis.
I am extending wrapfs so that when a write call is made wrapfs transparently
makes a copy of that file in a separate directory and then write is performed
on the file. But I don't want that I create a copy for every write call.
A naive approach could be I check for existence of file in that directory. But
I think for each call checking this could be a severe penalty.
I could also check for first write call and then store a value for that
specific file using private_data attribute. But that would not be stored on
disk. So I would need to check that again.
I was also thinking of making use of modification time. I could save a
modification time. If the older modification time is before that time then only
a copy is created otherwise I won't do anything. I tried to use inode.i_mtime
for this but it was the modified time even before write was called, also
applications can modify that time.
So I was thinking of storing some value in inode on disk that indicates its
backup has been created or not. Is that possible? Any other suggestions or
approaches are welcome.
You are essentially saying you want to do a Copy-On-Write virtual filesystem layer.
IMO, some of these have been done, and it would be easier to implement these in userland (using libfuse and the fuse module, e.g.). That way, you can be king of your castle and add your metadata in any which way you feel is appriate:
just add (hidden) metadata files to each directory
use extended POSIX attributes (setfattr and friends)
heck, you could even use a sqlite database
If you really insist on doing these things in-kernel, you'll have a lot more work since accessing the metadata from kernel mode is goind to take a lot more effort (you'd most likely want to emulate your own database using memory mapped files so as to minimize the amount of 'userland (style)' work required and to make it relatively easy to get atomicity and reliability right1.
1
On How Everybody Gets File IO Wrong: see also here
You can use atime instead of mtime. In that case setting S_NOATIME flag on the inode prevents it from updating (see touch_atime() function at the inode.c). The only thing you'll need is to mount your filesystem with noatime option.
I wish to understand the way kernel works when a user/app tries to create a file in a directorty.
The background - We have a java applicaiton which consumes messages over JMS, processes it and then writes the XML to an outbound queue+a local directory. Yesterday we obeserved unsual delays in writing to the directory. On 'ls|wc -l' we found >300,000 files in there. Did a quick strace on the process and found it full of mutex calls (More than 3/4 calls in the strace were mutex).
So i thought that new file creation is taking time becasue the system has to every time check certain things (e.g name of files to make sure that the new file with a specific name can be created) amongst 300,000 files and then create a file.
I cleared the directory and the applicaiton resumed to normal service levels.
My questions
Was my analysis correct (It seems cuz the app started working fine after a clear down)?
More imporatant, how does the kernel work when you try to creat a new file in directory.
Can the abnormal number of mutex calls be attributed to the high number of files in the directory?
Many thanks
J
Please read about the Linux Filesystem, i-nodes and d-nodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inode_pointer_structure
The file system is organized into fixed-sized blocks. If your directory is relatively small, it fits in the direct blocks and things are fast. If your directory is not too big, it fits in the direct blocks and some indirect blocks, and is still reasonably fast. If your directory becomes too big, it spills into double indirect blocks and becomes slow.
Actual sizes depend on file system and kernel configuration.
Rule of thumb is to keep the directory under 12 blocks, depending on your block size. Many systems use 8K blocks; a fast directory is under 98,304 bytes.
A file entry is something like 16*4 bytes in size (IIRC), so plan on no more than 1500 files per directory as a practical upper limit.
Directories with large numbers of entries are often slow - how slow depends on the underlying filesystem.
The common solution is to create a hierarchy of directories, so each dir only has a few hundred entries.
Mutex system calls are a result of the application (probably something in the JVM or the Java libraries) making mutex calls.
Synchronisation internal to the kernel you will not see via strace, as this only examines system calls themselves.
A directory with lots of files should not become inefficient if you are using a filesystem which uses directory indexes; most now do (ext3 does optionally but it's normally enabled nowadays).
Non-indexed directories (like those used on the bad old filesystems - ext2, vfat etc) get really bad with lots of files, and you'll see the "open" system call taking a lot longer.
Shred documentation says shred is "not guaranteed to be effective" (See bottom). So if I shred a document on my Ext3 filesystem or on a Raid, what happens? Do I shred part of the file? Does it sometimes shred the whole thing and sometimes not? Can it shred other stuff? Does it only shred the file header?
CAUTION: Note that shred relies on a very important assumption:
that the file system overwrites data in place. This is the
traditional way to do things, but many modern file system designs
do not satisfy this assumption. The following are examples of file
systems on which shred is not effective, or is not guaranteed to be
effective in all file sys‐ tem modes:
log-structured or journaled file systems, such as those supplied with AIX and Solaris (and JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, Ext3, etc.)
file systems that write redundant data and carry on even if some writes fail, such as RAID-based file systems
file systems that make snapshots, such as Network Appliance’s NFS server
file systems that cache in temporary locations, such as NFS version 3 clients
compressed file systems
In the case of ext3 file systems, the above disclaimer applies
(and shred is thus of limited effectiveness) only in data=journal
mode, which journals file data in addition to just metadata. In
both the data=ordered (default) and data=writeback modes, shred
works as usual. Ext3 journaling modes can be changed by adding
the data=something option to the mount options for a
particular file system in the /etc/fstab file, as documented in the
mount man page (man mount).
All shred does is overwrite, flush, check success, and repeat. It does absolutely nothing to find out whether overwriting a file actually results in the blocks which contained the original data being overwritten. This is because without knowing non-standard things about the underlying filesystem, it can't.
So, journaling filesystems won't overwrite the original blocks in place, because that would stop them recovering cleanly from errors where the change is half-written. If data is journaled, then each pass of shred might be written to a new location on disk, in which case nothing is shredded.
RAID filesystems (depending on the RAID mode) might not overwrite all of the copies of the original blocks. If there's redundancy, you might shred one disk but not the other(s), or you might find that different passes have affected different disks such that each disk is partly shredded.
On any filesystem, the disk hardware itself might just so happen to detect an error (or, in the case of flash, apply wear-leveling even without an error) and remap the logical block to a different physical block, such that the original is marked faulty (or unused) but never overwritten.
Compressed filesystems might not overwrite the original blocks, because the data with which shred overwrites is either random or extremely compressible on each pass, and either one might cause the file to radically change its compressed size and hence be relocated. NTFS stores small files in the MFT, and when shred rounds up the filesize to a multiple of one block, its first "overwrite" will typically cause the file to be relocated out to a new location, which will then be pointlessly shredded leaving the little MFT slot untouched.
Shred can't detect any of these conditions (unless you have a special implementation which directly addresses your fs and block driver - I don't know whether any such things actually exist). That's why it's more reliable when used on a whole disk than on a filesystem.
Shred never shreds "other stuff" in the sense of other files. In some of the cases above it shreds previously-unallocated blocks instead of the blocks which contain your data. It also doesn't shred any metadata in the filesystem (which I guess is what you mean by "file header"). The -u option does attempt to overwrite the file name, by renaming to a new name of the same length and then shortening that one character at a time down to 1 char, prior to deleting the file. You can see this in action if you specify -v too.
The other answers have already done a good job of explaining why shred may not be able to do its job properly.
This can be summarised as:
shred only works on partitions, not individual files
As explained in the other answers, if you shred a single file:
there is no guarantee the actual data is really overwritten, because the filesystem may send writes to the same file to different locations on disk
there is no guarantee the fs did not create copies of the data elsewhere
the fs might even decide to "optimize away" your writes, because you are writing the same file repeatedly (syncing is supposed to prevent this, but again: no guarantee)
But even if you know that your filesystem does not do any of the nasty things above, you also have to consider that many applications will automatically create copies of file data:
crash recovery files which word processors, editors (such as vim) etc. will write periodically
thumbnail/preview files in file managers (sometimes even for non-imagefiles)
temporary files that many applications use
So, short of checking every single binary you use to work with your data, it might have been copied right, left & center without you knowing. The only realistic way is to always shred complete partitions (or disks).
The concern is that data might exist on more than one place on the disk. When the data exists in exactly one location, then shred can deterministically "erase" that information. However, file systems that journal or other advanced file systems may write your file's data in multiple locations, temporarily, on the disk. Shred -- after the fact -- has no way of knowing about this and has no way of knowing where the data may have been temporarily written to disk. Thus, it has no way of erasing or overwriting those disk sectors.
Imagine this: You write a file to disk on a journaled file system that journals not just metadata but also the file data. The file data is temporarily written to the journal, and then written to its final location. Now you use shred on the file. The final location where the data was written can be safely overwritten with shred. However, shred would have to have some way of guaranteeing that the sectors in the journal that temporarily contained your file's contents are also overwritten to be able to promise that your file is truly not recoverable. Imagine a file system where the journal is not even in a fixed location or of a fixed length.
If you are using shred, then you're trying to ensure that there is no possible way your data could be reconstructed. The authors of shred are being honest that there are some conditions beyond their control where they cannot make this guarantee.