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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans