From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263686AbTDTTep (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:34:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263687AbTDTTep (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:34:45 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:54740 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263686AbTDTTeo (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:34:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? From: Alan Cox To: Stephan von Krawczynski Cc: John Bradford , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20030420192110.1a457c2d.skraw@ithnet.com> References: <20030420185512.763df745.skraw@ithnet.com> <200304201712.h3KHCsBu000709@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> <20030420192110.1a457c2d.skraw@ithnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1050864521.11658.8.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 20 Apr 2003 19:48:42 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sul, 2003-04-20 at 18:21, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > I know you favor a layer between low-level driver and fs probably. Sure it is > clean design, and sure it sounds like overhead (Yet Another Layer). Wrong again - its actually irrelevant to the cost of mirroring data, the cost is entirely in the PCI and memory bandwidth. The raid1 management overhead is almost nil