Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:00:16 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> > I know you favor a layer between low-level driver and fs > > probably. Sure it is clean design, and sure it sounds like > > overhead (Yet Another Layer). > > Wrong again - its actually irrelevant to the cost of mirroring data, the cost > is entirely in the PCI and memory bandwidth. The raid1 management overhead is > almost nil
Actually what I was suggesting was even simpler - in the unlikely event that we were talking about an MFM or similar interface disk that _was_ basically like a big floppy, and did no error correction of it's own, we _could_ reserve, say, one sector per track, and create a fault tollerant device that substituted the spare sector in the event of a write fault.
The overhead would probably be exactly zero, becuase nobody would actually compile the feature in and use it :-).
John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |