Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:29:53 -0800 |
| |
On Wednesday 12 March 2008 06:11, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Ext3 is only going to help you if the ramdisk writeback respects barriers > > > and ordering rules ? > > > > I was alluding to to e2fsck's amazing repair ability, not ext3's journal. > > Oh you mean "pray hard". e2fsck works well with typical disk style > failures, it is not robust against random chunks vanishing. I know this > as I've worked on and debugged a case where a raid card rebooted silently > and threw out the write back cache.
So then you know that people already rely on batteries in critical storage applications. So I do not understand why all the FUD from you.
Particularly about Ext2/Ext3, which does recover well from random damage. My experience.
> > Your comment re fs chunk size reveals that I have failed to > > communicate the most basic principle of the ramback design: the > > backing store is not expected to represent a consistent filesystem > > No I get that. You've ignored the fact I'm suggesting that design choice > is dumb.
You seem to be calling Linux unreliable.
Daniel
| |