[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: reiser4 plugins
    On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:21:38PM +0300, Markus   T?rnqvist wrote:
    > On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 11:34:50PM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
    > >David Masover <> wrote:
    > >> I think Hans (or someone) decided that when hardware stops working, it's
    > >> not the job of the FS to compensate, it's the job of lower layers, or
    > >> better, the job of the admin to replace the disk and restore from
    > >> backups.
    > >Handling other people's data this way is just reckless irresponsibility.
    > >Sure, you can get high performance if you just forego some of your basic
    > >responsibilities.
    > Your honest-to-bog opinion is that the FS vendor is responsible for
    > the admin not taking backups or the hardware vendor shipping crap?
    > *still trying to understand how that can be*

    Most Linux users are using PC-class hardware. And Ted's First Law of
    PC-Class Hardware is: "Most of it is crap". And then there's Ted's
    Second Law, "Too many system administrators don't do backups". This
    is because most system admins are users who've never been trained to
    be a sysadmin, or who haven't (yet) had weeks or months of works
    disappear after a hardware failure.

    So it's a matter of matching the filesystem to the needs of the user.
    If you have a filesystem which is blazingly fast, but which at the
    slightest sign of trouble, trashes your data, versus one which is fast
    but perhaps not-so-fast as the other filesystem, but which is much
    more reliable, which would you choose?

    XFS has similar issues where it assumes that hardware has powerfail
    interrupts, and that the OS can use said powerfail interrupt to stop
    DMA's in its tracks on an power failure, so that you don't have
    garbage written to key filesystem data structures when the memory
    starts suffering from the dropping voltage on the power bus faster
    than the DMA engine or the disk drives. So XFS is a great filesystem
    --- but you'd better be running it on a UPS, or on a system which has
    power fail interrupts and an OS that knows what to do. Ext3, because
    it does physical block journalling, does not suffer from this problem.
    (Yes, Resierfs uses logical journalling as well, so it suffers from
    the same problem.)

    So perhaps it's not the job of the FS vendor to be responsible for
    crap hardware or lazy sysadmins that don't do backups. But a system
    administrator who knows that he doesn't do backups frequently enough,
    or is running on cheap, crap hardware, would be wise to consider
    carefully which filesystem he/she wants to use given the systems
    configuration and his backup habits.

    Me, I'll go for the robust filesystem, just on general principles. As
    a friend from the large-scale enterprise storage world once put it,
    "Performance is Job 2. Robustness is Job #1." (Of course, if you
    want to put your fragile filesystem on a multi-million dollar
    enterprise storage system such as an IBM Shark or an EMC Symmetrix
    box, I'm sure IBM or EMC will be happy to sell you one. :-)

    - Ted
    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: 2005-06-27 19:15    [W:0.023 / U:30.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site