lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?
    Date
    > > I know you favor a layer between low-level driver and fs
    > > probably. Sure it is clean design, and sure it sounds like
    > > overhead (Yet Another Layer).
    >
    > Wrong again - its actually irrelevant to the cost of mirroring data, the cost
    > is entirely in the PCI and memory bandwidth. The raid1 management overhead is
    > almost nil

    Actually what I was suggesting was even simpler - in the unlikely
    event that we were talking about an MFM or similar interface disk that
    _was_ basically like a big floppy, and did no error correction of it's
    own, we _could_ reserve, say, one sector per track, and create a
    fault tollerant device that substituted the spare sector in the event
    of a write fault.

    The overhead would probably be exactly zero, becuase nobody would
    actually compile the feature in and use it :-).

    John.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.021 / U:0.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site