On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 15:21 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > [re persistence] > > At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:38:06 +0200, > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > mechanism for other goals. I think we may want it as a goal by itself as > > well (unplugging the computer without need for explicit recovery is a nice > > thing), but probably low priority, so it may very well be dropped. > > To be perfectly honest: I think it's pretty cool, even for its own > sake. However, that is not really a good technical argument, and > persistence doesn't come for free, so that's why I am putting my > "careful hat" on.
Wait! When you say "pretty cool", you are actually saying "Hey, this is something that an end user might actually notice and like." That's a really *good* reason to look at it. As to cost, yes, I am afraid that EROS-style persistence is significantly more efficient than conventional file systems, and we would face a definite design burden finding interesting uses for the newly available disk bandwidth. Yes, it really is faster. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
