On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +0000, nixlists wrote: > What are you running? Exchange?? > > Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save > from most, but not all lost messages after a crash. > > Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer > the question for the simplest case - we've already decided that every > RAID controller in the world cannot be trusted: > > Now SATA controller - no cache, SATA disk - write-back cache disabled. > FFS mounted 'sync' on it. In most cases, can rename() provide the > quarantee as its man page? By most cases I mean typical usage > day-to-day usage without single-bit or other errors, or hardware going > flaky. I do know errors happen, ok? > > Thanks!
Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for negligable increases in safety by disabling your cache. If nothing fails you don't need to cripple yourself by frankensteining your hardware. Moving hardware configuration out of the manufacturer recommended comfort zone will INCREASE your chances of failure. If you are trying to create a system where hardware (or software) can never lose any of your data, you are Don Quixote and they are windmills. Follow normal practise, backup religiously and you will probably retire before the planets align and your data disappears. In most cases. That's my plan. .... Ken
