On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:41:57AM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 08:11:32PM -0700, David Kirchner wrote: > > > >>On 5/3/06, Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>To summarize: at some point you do, indeed, have to ship something. You > >>>have to choose a point where the least number of users will see > >>>regressions > >>>vs. the most number of users will see improvements. (Not everyone uses > >>>quotas.) > >>> > >>FWIW, the snapshot bugs, particularly those seen during background > >>fscks, can affect every installation, although you're unlikely to see > >>them unless your server panics or loses power (or in some way requires > >>a fsck on boot). > >> > > > >You missed the part where snapshots have caused deadlocks under > >varying conditions since day 1. They have never worked 100% reliably, > >and despite our best efforts that will remain true with 6.1. > > > >Kris > > > > Then why utilize a known non-functional technology?
Because again, the benefits have been judged by the decision-makers and found to outweigh the drawbacks. Perhaps that's just a difficult concept for some people to understand if they're used to thinking of everything in binary terms. Kris
pgpKbi8agviOC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
