Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Sep 2012 14:01 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Most applications do not deal with disks directly, instead storing their data in files in a file system, which protects us from those scoundrel disks. After all, a key task of the file system is to ensure that the file system can always be recovered to a consistent state after an unplanned system crash (for example, a power failure). While a good file system will be able to beat the disks into submission, the required effort can be great and the reduced performance annoying. This article examines the shortcuts that disks take and the hoops that file systems must jump through to get the desired reliability."
Thread beginning with comment 534448
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: So
by Brendan on Sun 9th Sep 2012 17:40 UTC in reply to "So"
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I'm just asking, as the current state is "hey, look ma', I don't have time for anything else, so let's make another lame news syndication web site"

Sad.


It is my fault (not Thom's), because I haven't contributed an article to OSnews. Unfortunately I'm not the only person who hasn't contributed an article to OSnews - it's a widespread problem.

I just want to thank you Peteo, for all of the well written articles that you have contributed in the past. I can understand how someone like you, who has contributed so many articles, might be a little upset at everyone else who hasn't.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: So
by peteo on Sun 9th Sep 2012 17:44 in reply to "RE: So"
peteo Member since:
2011-10-05

Hi,
I just want to thank you Peteo, for all of the well written articles that you have contributed in the past. I can understand how someone like you, who has contributed so many articles, might be a little upset at everyone else who hasn't.
- Brendan


I've submitted ten articles, which makes your sarcasm look really silly (no, not submitted as peteo, since the overlord didn't like critisism and banned my original account.)

Edited 2012-09-09 17:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: So
by Brendan on Sun 9th Sep 2012 17:55 in reply to "RE[2]: So"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I've submitted ten articles starting in 2004, which makes your sarcasm look really silly.


Heh - I took a gamble, and I lost.

In any case, I don't think it's fair to blame Thom and only Thom.

Edit: for the content I mean - I have no idea about the "banned original account" thing.


- Brendan

Edited 2012-09-09 17:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2