Originally posted by misiu_mp
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ted Ts'o: EXT4 Within Striking Distance Of XFS
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostNo, it's pretty clear you're the one who isn't understanding. Everyone agrees that in certain cases it's important to have data integrity. What you don't seem to get is that in certain situations it is perfectly acceptable to have data errors. Even if you don't know they are there. This has been explained to you, but you keep repeating the same stuff so I'm not sure if you're ignoring us or just don't understand the concept.
More important is data safety than speed, but you can get both with ZFS. Why do you think that in the LHC they use ZFS and not any thing else?
Comment
-
Originally posted by misiu_mp View PostMultimedia files usually tolerate being slightly corrupted. It might show as an small artefact in a movie or an image or a crack an audio stream.
Applications such as video hosting would probably be great candidates for fast but less secure storage.
So... what if the metadata about a file is corrupted? Then you can not open the file. Is that acceptable?
Comment
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostSo... what if the metadata about a file is corrupted? Then you can not open the file. Is that acceptable?
If you're already using redundant machines then you may not care if an individual machine loses data if that means you can improve disk performance. From what I've read about Google, they're used to entire servers failing and they just replace them when they get time because the data is duplicated elsewhere.
Comment
-
Originally posted by movieman View PostYes, if you have another copy. For example, from what I've read about large-scale NoSql databases they'll typically store multiple copies of data on different machines, so in theory if you tried to read the data from one machine and it was corrupt, you could ask a different machine instead.
We talk about unsafe solutions, where corrupted data is allowed.
Comment
-
As mentioned before, Google is a good example of a company willing to trade performance for data integrity. I brought them up originally because i believe they are the ones who created the no-journaling patch for ext4.
In their case, they have multiple copies of the data scattered around the world and so whenever 1 copy gets corrupted they just take it offline and serve the data from somewhere else until it gets replicated back again. In fact, they have to do this no matter what FS they use, because they use so much hardware they are constantly getting defects going on. The disks physically stop working, and at that point if they don't have another copy they're screwed anyway.
Furthermore, in case there is a small error the chances of any customer actually seeing it are very slim. Most likely it will show up as a small speck on a video file, or perhaps 1 character wrong in a search result somewhere (buried 100 pages down in the results list). Compare that to performance, which affects every single user the have all the time. They've done studies where slowing down the response time by only a few tens of milliseconds directly results in much fewer searches being performed, so that makes a big difference in terms of how much advertising revenue they bring in. So it makes sense that they would do this.
Now, obviously with something like finance it's not acceptable to mess up a number. That's a different situation, and probably even a more realistic situation for more people. It's just not the only one.
Comment
-
The comedian
Multimedia files don't glitch because of the bad bytes, it's the compression algorithm.
File-systems are fault-tolerant. You run RAID arrays to ensure data consistency. If your data is seriously important you run n mirrors.
Where n is a safe number you expect to contain the fault.
Tso's analysis comparison between Football and Software Development is a case of playing Sideline Quarterback. Nobody knows what will work until they are playing the game. We've been playing for years and the coaches aren't listening.
Development needs to slow down. The Phoronix tests demonstrate an actual Football game. Scenarios are the practices most teams run in preparation for a big game. Stat the Quarterback's speed, food capacity, urine content, and IQ all that you won't you'll never see what's he's capable of unless you got him catching snaps and slinging pigskin.
To measure performance, Kernel Developers are looking at raw data which is WRONG! User experience is more important. Linus, Andrew, and etc can't seem to grasp the majority don't have 6-core chips and 16 GB's of ram. So we perceive time relative to moving GB files and the mouse staggering across the screen. We have patches to fix that problem but Coach Linus isn't in a hurry to put the rookies' code on the grill.
Tso and everyone else, refer to the kernel tests over 5 years article. 2.6.14 nailed "176MB/s with the Linux 2.6.14 kernel."
Consider that with a responsive system as well. When you're pumping a hell of a lot of data on a responsive system you get a snazzy feeling. I suggest testing on an Acer Aspire.
I use a 600Mhz Pentium 3 and 1 Ghz Celeron for my least cases. You went to college, remember The Scientific Method. Remember The Scientific Method.
--
If you're going to do something then do it right or don't do it at all
If doing it the right way ends up breaking things; then do it the wrong way
squirrl
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostWe are, whenever Kebabbert loses an argument he tries to redefine it.
On the other hand, I can show links where you lie. For instance, here you claim that you have proved me wrong, and I ask you to show that. You never showed links where you "prove me wrong", because there are no such links. False claims about me.
Discussion of *BSD operating systems and software, including but not limited to FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. Mac OS X, GNU Hurd, and other alternative operating systems can also be discussed.
Here I show that you lie again.
Discussion of *BSD operating systems and software, including but not limited to FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. Mac OS X, GNU Hurd, and other alternative operating systems can also be discussed.
In fact, I suspect you have lied in other posts as well. For instance, you claimed that New York Stock Exchange are very happy now:
Discussion of *BSD operating systems and software, including but not limited to FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. Mac OS X, GNU Hurd, and other alternative operating systems can also be discussed.
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostDidn't the NYSE recently switch from Unix to Red Hat, and that's about as mission critical as things come. From everything I've heard, they've been extremely happy with Linux since the switch.
Discussion of Solaris-based operating systems including OpenSolaris, Oracle Solaris, Nexenta, and BeleniX.
So, again, show me links where I loose an argument, or when I redefine the argument. Most probably you can not show those links about me because there no links, so this is probably your normal FUD, just as usual.
Comment
Comment