Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:47 -0800 (PST) | From | dean gaudet <> | Subject | Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ? |
| |
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
> dean gaudet wrote: > > > Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two > > > independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to > > > worry > > > about head-stack contention. > > > > > > > this system is write intensive and writes go to all spindles, so you're > > assertion is wrong. > > I don't know what you think I was asserting, but you were wrong. Of course > I/O is distributed across both spindles. You would expect no less. THAT is > what I was telling you.
are you on crack?
it's a raid1. writes go to all spindles. they have to. by definition. reads can be spread around, but writes are mirrored.
> > > the main worry i have is some user maliciously hardlinks everything > > under /var/log somewhere else and slowly fills up the file system with > > old rotated logs. the users otherwise have quotas so they can't fill > > things up on their own. i could probably set up XFS quota trees (aka > > "projects") but haven't gone to this effort yet. > > > > See, this is where you show that you don't understand the system. I'll > explain it, just once. /var/home contains home directories. /var/log and > /var/home are on the same filesystem. So /var/log/* can be linked to > /var/home/malicious, and that's just one of your basic misunderstandings.
yes you are on crack.
i told you i understand this exactly. it's right there in the message sent.
> No. Look, you obviously haven't read what I've told you. I mean, it's very > obvious you haven't. I'm wasting my time on you and I'm now out of > generosity. Good luck to you. I think you need it.
you're the idiot not actually reading my messages.
-dean
| |