On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Mike McCarty wrote: > >This is a device issue, no filesystem may fix it. Not that I expect even > >the crap we buy today for desktops and servers to be THIS dumb. > > Yes, a file system can fix that. But it has to be a file system > which understands redundant hardware.
I think I understand what is happening in this thread, finally. > No, not true. The system I'm talking about can recover from any > single component failure without any data loss. Depending on what > fails, there may be some reduction in processing capacity. This is not a filesystem. If you got anywhere beyond software, you are not talking about a filesystem. > What makes you think that the FS I am talking about doesn't > have those features (except journalling, which is not necessary)? I didn't. It would *have* to implement rollback, or it would not be failure-proof, and rollback *requires* either journals or that you only write over unused areas. > The system I'm referring to has: > > redundant separate power supplies > redundant separate processors ... This is hardware, not a file system. Your "system" is a file system and a storage system. Which is fine, you can't guarantee data safety without *both* of them playing well together. But it certainly explains why I could not make sense of what the heck you wanted from filesystems, and what magic filesystem of yours was that which would be absolutely safe *regardless of the storage system it ran on top of*. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
