[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?
    On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:12:54 +0100 (BST)
    John Bradford <> wrote:

    > > Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a
    > > little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware?
    > Nothing - what is wrong is to implement it in a filesystem, where it
    > does not belong.

    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).

    > > See, a car (to name a real good example) is not primarily built to have
    > > accidents.
    > Stunt cars are built to survive accidents. All cars _could_ be built
    > like stunt cars, but they aren't.

    Well, I do really hope that my BMW is built to survive accidents, too. Because
    if it is not, I go and buy a Mercedes immediately. We are looking for passive
    safety stuff here, and if it _can_ make a difference to spend one buck more,
    then I will do ...


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.025 / U:60.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site