Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:58:40 +1300 From: Joe Abley <jabley@patho.gen.nz> To: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov> Cc: Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <19991028095839.A26635@patho.gen.nz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.4.10.9910271026500.671784-100000@acl.lanl.gov>; from rminnich@lanl.gov on Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 10:29:54AM -0600 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910271158590.1849-100000@paradox.nexuslabs.com> <Pine.SGI.4.10.9910271026500.671784-100000@acl.lanl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 10:29:54AM -0600, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > To put it slightly more strongly: as far as I'm concerned ext2 is not a > serious fs if you really care about handling power failures and other such > fun things. I'm not sure I've ever really understood this position. In cases where data integrity is vital to retain, there is no excuse for not using machines with multiple power supplies, each fed from independent, clean power sources, with multiple fans, running a stable, tested OS release. Of course, double-point failures _do_ occur. But really, not very often. Paranoia with FS writes can seem extreme considering that the network which attaches that machine to the outside world is probably not engineered to the same degree of fault protection. Just my $0.02. I'm not saying that FFS should throw caution to the wind (especially not in the default configuration) but to argue that async writes are only ever used by stupid people is a little unfair :) Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991028095839.A26635>