Re: design goals vs mechanisms

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 15:21 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> [re persistence]
> 
> At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:38:06 +0200,
> Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > mechanism for other goals.  I think we may want it as a goal by itself as
> > well (unplugging the computer without need for explicit recovery is a nice
> > thing), but probably low priority, so it may very well be dropped.
> 
> To be perfectly honest: I think it's pretty cool, even for its own
> sake.  However, that is not really a good technical argument, and
> persistence doesn't come for free, so that's why I am putting my
> "careful hat" on.

Wait! When you say "pretty cool", you are actually saying "Hey, this is
something that an end user might actually notice and like." That's a
really *good* reason to look at it.

As to cost, yes, I am afraid that EROS-style persistence is
significantly more efficient than conventional file systems, and we
would face a definite design burden finding interesting uses for the
newly available disk bandwidth.

Yes, it really is faster.

shap