From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 14:23: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288F315016; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-3.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.42]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA41638; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:22:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:22:20 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Joe Abley Cc: "Ronald G. Minnich" , Chuck Youse , Ilia Chipitsine , questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? In-Reply-To: <19991028095839.A26635@patho.gen.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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