Re: [testcase] test your fs/storage stack (was Re: [patch] ext2/3:document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

[Pavel Machek]

>>> people aren't objecting to better documentation, they are objecting to
>>> misleading documentation.
>>>      
>> Actually Ric is. He's trying hard to make RAID5 look better than it
>> really is.
>
> I object to misleading and dangerous documentation that you have  
> proposed. I spend a lot of time working in data integrity, talking and  
> writing about it so I care deeply that we don't misinform people.

Yes, truth is dangerous. To vendors selling crap products. 

> In this thread, I put out a draft that is accurate several times and you  
> have failed to respond to it.

Accurate as in 'has 0 information content' :-(.

> The big picture that you don't agree with is:
>
> (1) RAID (specifically MD RAID) will dramatically improve data integrity  
> for real users. This is not a statement of opinion, this is a statement  
> of fact that has been shown to be true in large scale deployments with  
> commodity hardware.

It is also completely irrelevant.

> (2) RAID5 protects you against a single failure and your test case  
> purposely injects a double failure.

Most people would be surprised that press of reset button is 'failure'
in this context.

> (4) Data loss occurs in non-journalling file systems and journalling  
> file systems when you suffer double failures or hot unplug storage,  
> especially inexpensive FLASH parts.

It does not happen on inexpensive DISK parts,  so people do not expect
that and it is worth pointing out.
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/