From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [Advocacy] Re: 3ware 9650 tips Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:48:01 -0600 Message-ID: <20070716174801.GM13826@parisc-linux.org> References: <1184606132.4551.11.camel@portatux64.mobile.smithconcepts.com> <200707162040.00062.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200707162040.00062.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Boldi Cc: "Bryan J. Smith" , Joshua Baker-LePain , David Chinner , Justin Piszcz , Jon Collette , linux-ide-arrays@lists.math.uh.edu, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:40:00PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > XFS surely rocks, but it's missing one critical component: data=ordered > And that's one component that's just too critical to overlook for an > enterprise environment that is built on data-integrity over performance. > > So that's the secret why people still use ext3, and XFS' reliance on external > hardware to ensure integrity is really misplaced. > > Now, maybe when we get the data=ordered onto the VFS level, then maybe XFS > may become viable for the enterprise, and ext3 may cease to be KING. Wow, thanks for bringing an advocacy thread onto linux-fsdevel. Just what we wanted. Do you have any insight into how to "get the data=ordered onto the VFS level"? Because to me, that sounds like pure nonsense. -- "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."