| |||||||||||||
Another pathological (but instructive) case...Another pathological (but instructive) case...Posted Jan 30, 2012 23:03 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Shared pain by dlang Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?
Similar story happens with USB sticks: most users believe FAT (on Windows) is super-safe, NTFS (on Windows) is horrible - and Linux is awful no matter what. Why? Delayed write defaults. FAT on Windows is tuned to flush everything on ANY close(2) call. NTFS works awfully slow in this mode thus it uses more aggressive caching. And on Linux caching is always on. And users just snatch USB stick the very millisecond program window is closed (well... most do... the cautious ones wait one or two seconds). They feel it's their unalienable right. In these circumstances suddenly the oldest and the most awful filesystem of them all becomes the clear winner! Exactly because "I care about my data" does not automatically imply "I'll do what I'm told to do to keep it".
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||