linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet

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]

Message-ID: <47D8BF76.8040105@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:15:26 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
CC:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/