From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:48:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20060809094813.GE3308@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <44CF87E6.1050004@slaphack.com> <20060806225912.GC4205@ucw.cz> <44D99ED9.1030003@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44D99ED9.1030003@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: David Masover , "Horst H. von Brand" , Bernd Schubert , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Jan-Benedict Glaw , Clay Barnes , Rudy Zijlstra , Adrian Ulrich , ipso@snappymail.ca, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 2006-08-09 02:37:45, Hans Reiser wrote: > Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > >Yes, I'm afraid redundancy/checksums kill write speed, > > > they kill write speed to cache, but not to disk.... our compression > plugin is faster than the uncompressed plugin..... Yes, you can get clever. But your compression plugin also means that single bit error means whole block is lost, so there _is_ speed vs. stability-against-hw-problems. But you are right that compression will catch same class of errors checksums will, so that it is probably good thing w.r.t. stability. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html