Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:22:20 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@patho.gen.nz> Cc: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>, Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991027161759.3714B-100000@shell-3.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <19991028095839.A26635@patho.gen.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Joe Abley wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 10:29:54AM -0600, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > > To put it slightly more strongly: as far as I'm concerned ext2 is not a > > serious fs if you really care about handling power failures and other such > > fun things. > > I'm not sure I've ever really understood this position. In cases where > data integrity is vital to retain, there is no excuse for not using > machines with multiple power supplies, each fed from independent, clean > power sources, with multiple fans, running a stable, tested OS release. > I take it you never have had anyone hit the Big Red Button, a fire, a flood, or a random panic, a clueless tech, or a hardware failure? I see one of my machines go down along these lines every six weeks or so. A hosed filesystem would (really!) ruin my day. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.991027161759.3714B-100000>