| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200803131214.40321.phillips@phunq.net> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:14:39 -0800 From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet On Thursday 13 March 2008 06:22, Alan Cox wrote: > ...Ext3 cannot recover well from massive loss of intermediate > writes. It isn't a normal failure mode and there isn't sufficient fs > metadata robustness for this. A log structured backing store would deal > with that but all you apparently want to do is scream FUD at anyone who > doesn't agree with you. Scream is an exaggeration, and FUD only applies to somebody who consistently overlooks the primary proposition in this design: that the battery backed power supply, computer hardware and Linux are reliable enough to entrust your data to them. I say this is practical, you say it is impossible, I say FUD. All you are proposing is that nobody can entrust their data to any hardware. Good point. There is no absolute reliability, only degrees of it. Many raid controllers now have battery backed writeback cache, which is exactly the same reliability proposition as ramback, on a smaller scale. Do you refuse to entrust your corporate data to such controllers? Daniel -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists