[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803161643.37310.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:36 -0800
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
On Sunday 16 March 2008 16:08, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> writes:
> >> It could, in a bit different location maybe, but it isn't a substitute
> >> for ordered writes.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Not sure if I understand the question correctly but obviously a pair
> (mirror) of servers running "dangerous" ramback would survive a crash
> of one machine and we could practically eliminate the probability of
> both (all) machines crashing simultaneously. However, there are
> cheaper ways to achieve similar performance and even better
> reliability - including those battery-backed (RAI)Disk controllers.
OK, so we are only searching for the cheapest way to achieve these
kinds of speeds, for some given uptime and risk level requirements.
That is a really interesting subject, but can we please leave it for a
while so I can get some work done on the code itself?
Thanks,
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