From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:52:33 -0400 Message-ID: <44DA04C1.7040306@slaphack.com> References: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <44CF87E6.1050004@slaphack.com> <20060806225912.GC4205@ucw.cz> <44D99ED9.1030003@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <44D99ED9.1030003@namesys.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Pavel Machek , "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 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..... Regarding cache, do we do any sort of consistency checking for RAM, or do we leave that to some of the stranger kernel patches -- or just an occasional memtest?