Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:21:10 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? |
| |
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:12:54 +0100 (BST) John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> wrote:
> > Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a > > little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware? > > Nothing - what is wrong is to implement it in a filesystem, where it > does not belong.
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).
> > See, a car (to name a real good example) is not primarily built to have > > accidents. > > Stunt cars are built to survive accidents. All cars _could_ be built > like stunt cars, but they aren't.
Well, I do really hope that my BMW is built to survive accidents, too. Because if it is not, I go and buy a Mercedes immediately. We are looking for passive safety stuff here, and if it _can_ make a difference to spend one buck more, then I will do ...
Regards, Stephan
- 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/
| |