From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:29:53 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200803092346.17556.phillips@phunq.net> <200803102050.40567.phillips@phunq.net> <20080312131133.60e99d29@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <20080312131133.60e99d29@the-village.bc.nu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200803121029.54108.phillips@phunq.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1318
Lines: 32

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/