Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- From: David Newall <davidn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:15:26 +1030
Daniel Phillips wrote:
So you design for the number of nines you need, taking all factors
into account, and you design for the performance you need. These are
cut and dried calculations. FUD has no place here.
There's no FUD here. The problem is that you didn't say that you've
designed this for only a few nines. If you delete fsck from your
rationale, simply saying that you rely on UPS to give you time to flush
buffers, you have a much better story. Certainly, once you've flushed
buffers and degraded to write-through mode, you're obviously as reliable
as ext2/3.
Your idea seems predicated on throwing large amounts of RAM at the
problem. What I want to know is this: Is it really 25 times faster than
ext3 with an equally huge buffer cache?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- References:
- [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- From: Chris Friesen
- Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- From: Daniel Phillips
- [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- Prev by Date: Re: Keys get stuck
- Next by Date: Re: pcibios_scanned needs to be set in ACPI? (was Re: 2.6.25-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.24)
- Previous by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- Next by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading