[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:0.048 / U:2.424 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site