Hi,
I heard that Linux filesystems were not reliable because of some bad way
of doing caching or something like that.
For a study on Linux FS reliability see [1] by Toshiba guys. It seems
Linux was upset on this about one year ago [2]. Quoting:
"Torvalds, for one, didn't seem too excited about the delayed
synchronization. He writes on the mailing list, "Doesn't at least ext4
default to the insane model of 'data is less important than metadata,
and it doesn't get journalled'? And ext3 with 'data=writeback' does the
same, no? Both of which are -- as far as I can tell -- total brain damage."
I don't mind if a filesystem is very fast: I want it to be reliable
first. I wonder if that Phoronix test suite checks for reliability first
or not.
Cheers,
Antonio
[1] elinux.org/images/2/26/Evaluation_of_Data_Reliability-ELC2010.pdf
[2]
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Linus-Torvalds-Upset-over-Ext3-and-Ext4
On 08/08/2010 19:22, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:13:46 -0400
Bill Moran<wmo...@potentialtech.com> wrote:
To someone technical who might be looking to investigate the results
with an eye toward fixing them, it's useless.
Anyone can download the Phoronix Test Suite though, so it should be
fairly easy to check if the results are valid at least.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
