[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible
    On 08/25/2009 07:53 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
    >> Why don't you hold all of your most precious data on that single S-ATA
    >> drive for five year on one box and put a second copy on a small RAID5
    >> with ext3 for the same period?
    >> Repeat experiment until you get up to something like google scale or the
    >> other papers on failures in national labs in the US and then we can have
    >> an informed discussion.
    > I'm not interested in discussing statistics with you. I'd rather discuss
    > fsync() and storage design issues.
    > ext3 is designed to work on single SATA disks, and it is not designed
    > to work on flash cards/degraded MD RAID5s, as Ted acknowledged.

    You are simply incorrect, Ted did not say that ext3 does not work with MD raid5.

    > Because that fact is non obvious to the users, I'd like to see it
    > documented, and now have nice short writeup from Ted.
    > If you want to argue that ext3/MD RAID5/no UPS combination is still
    > less likely to fail than single SATA disk given part fail
    > probabilities, go ahead and present nice statistics. Its just that I'm
    > not interested in them.
    > Pavel

    That is a proven fact and a well published one. If you choose to ignore
    published work (and common sense) that RAID makes you lose data less than
    non-RAID, why should anyone care what you write?


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-26 02:19    [W:0.021 / U:15.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site