Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:11:21 -0400 | From | Ric Wheeler <> | Subject | Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible |
| |
On 08/25/2009 07:53 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> Why don't you hold all of your most precious data on that single S-ATA >> drive for five year on one box and put a second copy on a small RAID5 >> with ext3 for the same period? >> >> Repeat experiment until you get up to something like google scale or the >> other papers on failures in national labs in the US and then we can have >> an informed discussion. > > I'm not interested in discussing statistics with you. I'd rather discuss > fsync() and storage design issues. > > ext3 is designed to work on single SATA disks, and it is not designed > to work on flash cards/degraded MD RAID5s, as Ted acknowledged.
You are simply incorrect, Ted did not say that ext3 does not work with MD raid5.
> > Because that fact is non obvious to the users, I'd like to see it > documented, and now have nice short writeup from Ted. > > If you want to argue that ext3/MD RAID5/no UPS combination is still > less likely to fail than single SATA disk given part fail > probabilities, go ahead and present nice statistics. Its just that I'm > not interested in them. > Pavel >
That is a proven fact and a well published one. If you choose to ignore published work (and common sense) that RAID makes you lose data less than non-RAID, why should anyone care what you write?
Ric
| |