Different users have different needs. I agree, there are many users who can not afford any downtime.
I worked at the NYSE and they reboot all their computers once a week. We had a policy at NYSE. If you suspect a computer has hardware problems, take it off line. It is better to be short a few computers then have that computer bring everything down. And fix that computer off line. Until last year I worked at world wide webmail provider. And trust me they could not avoid downtime. But the fact is everyone has down time, because hardware breaks and software is broken. However on the other hand if I am using a filesystem for recording TV programs or to play home computer games. Downtime is not the problem I really care about. I am rebooting lots anyway. The problem I see is managing disk errors. NOT repackers, unless ofcourse I need to run it all the time just to keep the filesystem in a usable state. The question is why not include lots of new filesystems. reiser4, ZFS They both have their own markets. And perhaps a really good clustering filesystem for markets that require NO downtime. -Tim --- Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:31:32PM -0500, David > Masover wrote: > > So you use a repacker. Nice thing about a > repacker is, everyone has > > downtime. Better to plan to be a little sluggish > when you'll have > > 1/10th or 1/50th of the users than be MUCH slower > all the time. > > Actually, that's a problem with log-structured > filesystems in general. > There are quite a few real-life workloads where you > *don't* have > downtime. The thing is, in a global economy, you __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
