Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet

[David Newall]

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