lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    On Tue 01-08-06 11:57:10, David Masover wrote:
    > Horst H. von Brand wrote:
    > >Bernd Schubert <bernd-schubert@gmx.de> wrote:
    >
    > >>While filesystem speed is nice, it also would be great
    > >>if reiser4.x would be very robust against any kind of
    > >>hardware failures.
    > >
    > >Can't have both.
    >
    > Why not? I mean, other than TANSTAAFL, is there a
    > technical reason for them being mutually exclusive? I
    > suspect it's more "we haven't found a way yet..."

    What does the acronym mean?

    Yes, I'm afraid redundancy/checksums kill write speed, and you need
    that for robustness...

    You could have filesystem that can be tuned for reliability and tuned
    for speed... but you can't have both in one filesystem instance.
    --
    Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
    -
    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: 2006-08-07 01:03    [W:5.003 / U:0.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site