[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:0.223 / U:7.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site