Re: [9fans] simple venti demo:

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1005 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom
> <quanstro@labs.coraid.com> wrote:
>   this is the same
> > dillema any non content-addressed disk has.  performance
> > vs. safety.  and of course one size doesn't fit all, so there are knobs
> in
> > most disks to turn off write caching.
>
> it's not as obvious a tradeoff as it seems.
>
> Anyway, I'm more interested in hearing from people who do something
> with the code.
>
> ron
>
>
Unless before you write to venti, you store stuff durably locally, and have
a way to replay lost data, you can't be sure the data in venti is really
stored, when venti ACKs your request to store data, it's nice to know it's
durably there.

So yes, it will potentially perform worse, but you're trading off actual
durability for performance.

One could go on tangents for crash-only designs, fault tolerance etc... but
that'd be digging the hole deeper.

Dave

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1516 bytes --]