From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263445AbTDSTvG (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 15:51:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263447AbTDSTvG (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 15:51:06 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:2432 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263445AbTDSTvF (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 15:51:05 -0400 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200304192005.h3JK5xm2000164@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Subject: Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept? To: skraw@ithnet.com (Stephan von Krawczynski) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:05:59 +0100 (BST) Cc: john@grabjohn.com (John Bradford), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (linux-kernel) In-Reply-To: <20030419185201.55cbaf43.skraw@ithnet.com> from "Stephan von Krawczynski" at Apr 19, 2003 06:52:01 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > I wonder whether it would be a good idea to give the linux-fs > > > (namely my preferred reiser and ext2 :-) some fault-tolerance. > > > > Fault tollerance should be done at a lower level than the filesystem. > > I know it _should_ to live in a nice and easy world. Unfortunately > real life is different. The simple question is: you have tons of > low-level drivers for all kinds of storage media, but you have > comparably few filesystems. To me this sound like the preferred > place for this type of behaviour can be fs, because all drivers > inherit the feature if it lives in fs. Unless you write a tar archive to the raw device :-) John.