On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Seth Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Dongjun Shin <[email protected]> wrote: >> A well-designed SSD should survive power cycling and should provide atomicity >> of flush operation regardless of the underlying flash operations. I don't >> expect >> that users of SSD have different requirements about atomicity. > > A reliable system should be based on the assumption that the underlying parts > are unreliable. Therefore, we should do as much as possible to make sure the > reliability in our filesystem instead of leaning on the SSDs.
I generally agree with this approach, however, it would clearly have a performance penalty. If possible it should be optional so that, on a reliable media, the hardware can do the hard work and software can perform well. But it might be too much to ask that btrfs support mkfs/mount options for every distinct class of storage (rotating, bad SSD, good SSD, USB flash, holographic cube, electron spin, etc.). -- Dmitri Nikulin Centre for Synchrotron Science Monash University Victoria 3800, Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
