Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934325Ab2J0Bzc (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:55:32 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:65199 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933342Ab2J0Bz2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:55:28 -0400 Message-ID: <508B3EF8.4000703@vlnb.net> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:55:04 -0400 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Mnenhy/0.8.5 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Alan Cox , =?UTF-8?B?5p2o6IuP56uLIFlhbmcgU3UgTGk=?= , General Discussion of SQLite Database , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, drh@hwaci.com Subject: Re: [sqlite] light weight write barriers References: <5086F5A7.9090406@vlnb.net> <20121025051445.GA9860@thunk.org> <20121025140325.49cd7c79@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121025135044.GA13562@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20121025135044.GA13562@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:CrU4cAZ2C+6vx+SHohCqY75FQzMk1q6OJ4Hy9zD2ABp 7qEDi6lzGCfvXBogqpNnYkAZuJrRCK5TVPe62EJ1d4PqRzhNSc nvnny5fxIiP2uvADSrg9luxdqJ8vaZ47YBga8TsdtpymK70ZLm CSNSrO/DbgGMPiVCbiOpPPOTA/+GZTtzsNFyRshfgMNuVNcHS8 QrDm5zFc47LzduaNckPr4foKwcDDvbzVCRRLLU2ZPPKAeTiY2X DLOob5BnXjVDCIb4J1sr6q0mos4t13D+fZ6Zn15iiGsdUUPRjQ QeoKF0rwHD0JSCorBGUM5vj7X1G4H6H5Qk1tIpDg/ZomYNqhXK tVpDiDOJF9hS7nLnM13k= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 30 Theodore Ts'o, on 10/25/2012 09:50 AM wrote: > Yeah.... I don't buy that. One, flash is still too expensive. Two, > the capital costs to build enough Silicon foundries to replace the > current production volume of HDD's is way too expensive for any > company to afford (the cloud providers are buying *huge* numbers of > HDD's) --- and that's assuming companies wouldn't chose to use those > foundries for products with larger margins --- such as, for example, > CPU/GPU chips. :-) And third and finally, if you study the long-term > trends in terms of Data Retention Time (going down), Program and Read > Disturb (going up), and Write Endurance (going down) as a function of > feature size and/or time, you'd be wise to treat flash as nothing more > than short-term cache, and not as a long term stable store. > > If end users completely give up on flash, and store all of their > precious family pictures on flash storage, after a couple of years, > they are likely going to be very disappointed.... > > Speaking personally, I wouldn't want to have anything on flash for > more than a few months at *most* before I made sure I had another copy > saved on spinning rust platters for long-term retention. Here I agree with you. Vlad -- 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/