FC4 kernel performance

[Peter Jones]

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 09:58 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> On Jeu 23 juin 2005 09:30, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 08:46 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> >> Some type of "journalling RAID" would be a possible solution (and
> >> would also allow for much faster re-syncs on unclean shutdown, as only
> >> the last written blocks would need updating).
> >
> > This is why RAID is entirely the wrong answer, and redundancy should be
> > implemented in the file system itself, instead of being hacked into the
> > block layer.
> 
> Can't this be done today with something that takes lvm snapshots each night ?

lvm snapshots right now don't seem fully baked to me; too many times
I've had the kernel run out of memory while fiddling with them.

Maybe it's just me...
-- 
        Peter