From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755026AbZIAU0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:26:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753892AbZIAU0W (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:26:22 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:56128 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752033AbZIAU0V (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:26:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:58:47 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Ric Wheeler Cc: Rob Landley , Theodore Tso , Florian Weimer , Goswin von Brederlow , kernel list , Andrew Morton , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net Subject: Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible) Message-ID: <20090901135846.GC2028@ucw.cz> References: <20090824212518.GF29763@elf.ucw.cz> <20090825232601.GF4300@elf.ucw.cz> <4A947682.2010204@redhat.com> <200908262253.17886.rob@landley.net> <4A967175.5070700@redhat.com> <20090827221319.GA1601@ucw.cz> <4A9733C1.2070904@redhat.com> <20090828064449.GA27528@elf.ucw.cz> <4A97BC9E.5070801@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A97BC9E.5070801@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Interesting. So, what's technically wrong with the patch below? > > My suggestion was that you stop trying to document your assertion of an > issue and actually suggest fixes in code or implementation. I really > don't think that you have properly diagnosed your specific failure or > done sufficient. However, if you put a full analysis and suggested code > out to the MD devel lists, we can debate technical implementation as we > normally do. I don't think I should be required to rewrite linux md layer in order to fix documentation. > The only note that I would put in ext3/4 etc documentation would be: > > "Reliable storage is important for any file system. Single disks (or > FLASH or SSD) do fail on a regular basis. Uh, how clever, instead of documenting that our md raid code does not always work as expected, you document that components fail. Newspeak 101? You even failed to mention little design problem with flash and eraseblock size... and the fact that you don't need flash to fail to get data loss. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html