User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Only with a UPS

Only with a UPS

Posted Sep 10, 2009 18:05 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
In reply to: Only with a UPS by ncm
Parent article: POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Okay, but I guess what I'm asking is, what do you classify as a crash, if power drops are not included?

(Log in to post comments)

Only with a UPS

Posted Sep 10, 2009 19:19 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Back about 1998, a Windows user told me that, for him, Windows "hardly ever crashes". Further questioning revealed that he defined "crash" as "I have to re-install". Lockups, a multiple-daily event, didn't count. Generally, though, by "crash" we mean the system stops responding to events, and must be re-started; usually this is a software failure, although all manner of hardware faults can cause it. When these happen, the disk has plenty of time to drain its buffers. Usually the software fault has not caused any disk writes with crazy parameters.

OS developers don't count power drops among crashes because those aren't their fault. That's commendable, because when they say "crash" they mean something they accept responsibility for.

Only with a UPS

Posted Sep 10, 2009 22:20 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

Ah, that makes sense.

Handling power drops, to me, seems to be a matter of impossibility, at least as long as disks lie about when writes actually complete.

Only with a UPS

Posted Sep 11, 2009 8:29 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

I'd say a crash happens any time that my system stands still because of some kernel oops, or any time I have to press the reset button because something hangs beyond redemption. (The latter being more often the case in my environment.)

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds