On 3/22/2012 4:26 PM, Peter Grandi wrote: [snipped 2-3 pages of redundant nonsense, linked docs, and filesystem concepts everyone is already familiar with] > Overselling 'delaylog' with cheeky propaganda glossing over the > heavy tradeoffs involved is understandable, but quite wrong. And now we come full circle to what started this mess of a discussion: Peter's dislike of Dave's presentation of delaylog, and XFS in general, at linux.conf.au. Peter, if *you* had been giving Dave's presentation at linux.conf.au, how would *you* have presented delayed logging differently? How much time would you have spent warning of the dangers of potential data loss upon a crash and how would you have presented it? Note I'm not asking you to re-critique Dave's presentation. I'm asking you to write your own short presentation of the delayed logging feature, so we can all see it done the right way, without "cheeky propaganda" and without "glossing over the heavy tradeoffs". We're all on the edge of our seats, eagerly awaiting your expert XFS presentation Peter. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
