xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

[RFC] VFS: data=ordered (was: [Advocacy] Re: 3ware 9650 tips)

To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>
Subject: [RFC] VFS: data=ordered (was: [Advocacy] Re: 3ware 9650 tips)
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:28:08 +0300
Cc: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>, Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jon Collette <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ide-arrays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070716174801.GM13826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0707131356520.25773@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200707162040.00062.a1426z@xxxxxxxxx> <20070716174801.GM13826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.5
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:40:00PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > XFS surely rocks, but it's missing one critical component: data=ordered
> > And that's one component that's just too critical to overlook for an
> > enterprise environment that is built on data-integrity over performance.
> >
> > So that's the secret why people still use ext3, and XFS' reliance on
> > external hardware to ensure integrity is really misplaced.
> >
> > Now, maybe when we get the data=ordered onto the VFS level, then maybe
> > XFS may become viable for the enterprise, and ext3 may cease to be KING.
>
> Wow, thanks for bringing an advocacy thread onto linux-fsdevel.  Just what
> we wanted.  Do you have any insight into how to "get the data=ordered
> onto the VFS level"?  Because to me, that sounds like pure nonsense.

Well, conceptually it sounds like a piece of cake, technically your guess is 
as good as mine.  IIRC, akpm once mentioned something like this.

But seriously, can you think of a technical reason why it shouldn't be 
possible to abstract data=ordered mode out into the VFS?


Thanks!

--
Al


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>