linux-kernel - Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Aug 2006 19:20:25 -0700
From:	"Wil Reichert" <wil.reichert@...il.com>
To:	"Krzysztof Halasa" <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc:	"Kyle Moffett" <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	"Ian Stirling" <ian.stirling@...ve.plus.com>,
	"David Masover" <ninja@...phack.com>,
	"David Lang" <dlang@...italinsight.com>,
	"Nate Diller" <nate.diller@...il.com>,
	"Adrian Ulrich" <reiser4@...nkenlights.ch>,
	"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>, ipso@...ppymail.ca,
	lkml@...productions.com, "Jeff Garzik" <jeff@...zik.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	"LKML Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	reiserfs-list@...esys.com
Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux

On 8/2/06, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> wrote:
> Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com> writes:
>
> > IMHO the best alternative for a situation like that is a storage
> > controller with a battery-backed cache and a hunk of flash NVRAM for
> > when the power shuts off (just in case you run out of battery), as
> > well as a separate 1GB battery-backed PCI ramdisk for an external
> > journal device (likewise equipped with flash NVRAM).  It doesn't take
> > much power at all to write a gig of stuff to a small flash chip
> > (Think about your digital camera which runs off a couple AA's), so
> > with a fair-sized on-board battery pack you could easily transfer its
> > data to NVRAM and still have power left to back up data in RAM for 12
> > hours or so.  That way bootup is fast (no reading 1GB of data from
> > NVRAM) but there's no risk of data loss.
>
> Not sure - reading flash is fast, but writing is quite slow.
> A digital camera can consume a set of 2 or 4 2500 mAh AA cells
> for a fraction of 1 GB (of course, only a part of power goes
> to flash).

Seeks are fast, throughput is terrible, power is minimal:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/supertalent-flashide/index.x?pg=1

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