On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Seth Huang <seth.hg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Dongjun Shin <djshin90@xxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
