Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:12:54 +0100 (BST)
John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> wrote:

> > Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a
> > little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware?
> 
> Nothing - what is wrong is to implement it in a filesystem, where it
> does not belong.

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).

> > See, a car (to name a real good example) is not primarily built to have
> > accidents.
> 
> Stunt cars are built to survive accidents.  All cars _could_ be built
> like stunt cars, but they aren't.

Well, I do really hope that my BMW is built to survive accidents, too. Because
if it is not, I go and buy a Mercedes immediately. We are looking for passive
safety stuff here, and if it _can_ make a difference to spend one buck more,
then I will do ...

Regards,
Stephan