Re: Linux should better cope with power failure

• Next message: Torrey Hoffman: "on /etc/mtab vs. /proc/mounts (Was RE: Linux should better cope w ith power failure)"
• Previous message: Andre Hedrick: "RE: Linux should better cope with power failure"
• In reply to: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Linux should better cope with power failure"
• Next in thread: William T Wilson: "Re: Linux should better cope with power failure"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Unix and other such variants have what's called a Virtual File System
> (VFS).

Correct, but hardly relevant here, except possibly that this enables you
to use a different, perhaps more resilient file system.

> The idea behind this is to keep as much recently-used file stuff
> in memory so that the system can be as fast as if you used a RAM disk
> instead of real physical (slow) hard disks.

Correct, but does not require VFS.

Nice try, though.

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH           Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch /
/_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Torrey Hoffman: "on /etc/mtab vs. /proc/mounts (Was RE: Linux should better cope w ith power failure)"
• Previous message: Andre Hedrick: "RE: Linux should better cope with power failure"
• In reply to: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Linux should better cope with power failure"
• Next in thread: William T Wilson: "Re: Linux should better cope with power failure"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:13 EST