> > It makes a lot of difference,I think "I get my data back" is a difference in kind. That isn't anything to do with what was being proposed. *ORDERING* not flush to media. The ones that don't respect tagged ordering are the ultra cheap nasty things you buy down the local computer store that come with a 2 page manual in something vaguely like English. The stuff used for real work is quite different. I want the speed and reliability. Without that ramback is a distraction until someone solves the real problems. You have no guarantee of commit to stable storage so your use of the word "transaction" is a bit farcical. There are a whole variety of ways to get far better results than "whoops bang there goes the file system". Log structured backing media is one, even snapshots. That way you'd quantify that for the cost of more rotating storage (which is cheap) you can only lose "x" minutes of data and will lose everything from a defined consistent point. File based backing store also has similar properties done right, but needs some higher level care to track closure and dirty blocks on a per inode basis. Alan --
| Jon Smirl | 463 kernel developers missing! |
| Nigel Cunningham | Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway |
| Greg KH | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scan... |
| Jeff Garzik | Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series.. |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Evgeniy Polyakov | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
