Originally posted by chithanh
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jcgeny View Postthere are some linux fans near nervous-breakdown ....[*8
normal they use linux too much ...i joke a little but as shown the kernel power bug that Phoronix found and solved , current linux is far from perfect .
using things from big corporations like intel ,M$ ntfs , and the drivers they build . should be the top priority , at least untill linux is on 80% of all pcs [by now it s 5] , may be that will come . like there are distro , there will be kernels choice with proprietaries patents inside
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostYou show some Oracle engineers talking about data corruption. You dont show any research. Of course, developers behind ReiserFS, NTFS, ext3 etc are also engineers, and they also tried to make ReiserFS, ext3 and NTFS safe. But they failed according to a PhD thesis. You show similar links: some Oracle engineers saying that they tried to do a filesystem safe. But maybe they also failed?
Again: I dont know any research on ext4 - but lack of research does not prove ext4 is safe. You need to provide research that shows that ext4 can handle silent corruption. You show some talks about Oracle engineers saying they want to make Linux safe. Just as Reiser said. But he failed, ReiserFS is not safe, according to PhD thesis.
There's a white paper about sdc and Linux.
I want to see the same kind of research on your Linux links. But there are no research as I know of. So we have to wait, but until then I would use the Linux solution in your links (and hope that the Linux solution is safe), or I would use ZFS. But it is good that Oracle helps Linux to be safer.
Leave a comment:
-
there are some linux fans near nervous-breakdown ....[*8
normal they use linux too much ...i joke a little but as shown the kernel power bug that Phoronix found and solved , current linux is far from perfect .
using things from big corporations like intel ,M$ ntfs , and the drivers they build . should be the top priority , at least untill linux is on 80% of all pcs [by now it s 5] , may be that will come . like there are distro , there will be kernels choice with proprietaries patents inside
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View PostWHERE????!
*1* Platter surface demagnetization errors! SMART detect this.
*2* Firmware errors! Contact or sue hardware vendor!
*3* Firmware errors! Same!
*4* RAID Hardware logic & xfer errors! Same, but for RAID card/controller/cables!
*5* RAM bit magnetization due to high density! Use ECC RAM, position RAM correctly - follow MB manufacturer recommendation, enclose hardware in grounded cages correctly!
Where is LINUX EXTx CORRUPTING YOUR DATA HERE?
Is filesystem DESIGNED to withstand all those errors? Hell, NO.
It is like blaming Joe from Los Angeles in Fukushima crisis! He is american, and americans delivered parts to Nippon, so he is responsible for nuclear meltdown! He is NOT. What is Joe responsible? To support his family and do it well! There is no point in giving every single Joe nuclear physician education to control the reactor either!
Projected to this "analysis", the file system should only do what filesystem should do - and do it well.
Detect file corruption - ext does data block and journal checksumming. Ntfs? I know only a way via hacks.
Prevent fragmentation - ext does this, designed with this priority. Ntfs does not do it and hence - speedups.
Correctly support operating system security requirements - ext does this.
Support for file requirements (timedate,name,reservations) - ext does this - and efficiently, unlike ntfs with MFT growing past 12-50% of partition size, without sane mechanism to change it.
Maintain consistency over power-down/cuts - ext does this and can do full data journaling, where ntfs does only metadata.
Badblocks - are not applicable to file system job, only in times of floppy disks. Nevertheless, ntfs tries to appy this in 21 century.
The guys threw HUGE testing at HUGE capacity arrays. Of course errors would show up, but from those, none were of linux or ext origin. Or you have something else to tell?
Of course it does. It reports when first physical sector was remapped or when drive motor starts showing age. Sufficient for the desktop or workstation to replace the drive with the new one.
Of course I know, happens ECC is only available and built for server mainboards,
The reason we use ECC, is because ECC protects against some of these errors. The same errors happens to disk drives. For instance Bit Rot, after some years 1 might become 0, vice versa. Bugs in firmware, etc. A safe filesystem should catch all these errors and protect your data. Hardware raid does not protect your data. There is research on that.
SATA has many SAS functions in it and is sufficient for desktop usage. SAS is too complex and has operating environment not normally seen on desktop, like 24/7 massively parallel data exchange with very limited error correction time, multi-disk and hotswap support. For example, you do not do SAS with 1000x 1Gb drives at home, you buy one 1Tb drive instead.
"every 10^16 bits, there will be errors that is not recoverable".
just read the spec sheet and you will see. Every 10^16 bits, there will be some read/write errors that are not recoverable nor repairable by the disk. And commodity SATA disks has much more errors than high end Enterprise server SAS disks.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostIt seems it's not the case in Linux:
You show some Oracle engineers talking about data corruption. You dont show any research. Of course, developers behind ReiserFS, NTFS, ext3 etc are also engineers, and they also tried to make ReiserFS, ext3 and NTFS safe. But they failed according to a PhD thesis. You show similar links: some Oracle engineers saying that they tried to do a filesystem safe. But maybe they also failed?
Again: I dont know any research on ext4 - but lack of research does not prove ext4 is safe. You need to provide research that shows that ext4 can handle silent corruption. You show some talks about Oracle engineers saying they want to make Linux safe. Just as Reiser said. But he failed, ReiserFS is not safe, according to PhD thesis.
Originally posted by kraftman View Post
Originally posted by kraftman View PostSo it seems it was resolved in Linux even before ZFS.
One of your Linux link is from last year, 2010. The other link is almost from 2009 (December 2008). Thus, almost half a decade after Sun talked about ZFS and Silent Corruption, everyone else now today is aware of Silent Corruption and tries to develop solutions to protect against Silent Corruption. But is their solution as good as ZFS?
There is recent research on ZFS and Silent Corruption, showing that ZFS protects against all the different silent corruption scenarios the research team tried to provoke:
Thus, initial research shows ZFS to be much safer than any other solution, because ZFS catched all artifically injected errors.
I want to see the same kind of research on your Linux links. But there are no research as I know of. So we have to wait, but until then I would use the Linux solution in your links (and hope that the Linux solution is safe), or I would use ZFS. But it is good that Oracle helps Linux to be safer.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostSo it seems it was resolved in Linux even before ZFS.
Originally posted by crazycheese View Post*1* Platter surface demagnetization errors! SMART detect this.
Of course I know, happens ECC is only available and built for server mainboards, although unofficially some asus boards seems to support it.
But its manufacturer job to make sure component does not break within its designed usage scenario.
ECC memory is supported on all AMD CPUs since socket 754 days, and only recently AMD started to screw consumers by dropping it from their Fusion parts. I think the majority of AM2/AM3/+ mobos support it too.
If you read the CERN article, you will notice that apart from the memory/firmware problem, all components worked within their specified error rates.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: