User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Temporary files: RAM or disk?

Temporary files: RAM or disk?

Posted Jun 4, 2012 9:39 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
In reply to: Temporary files: RAM or disk? by giraffedata
Parent article: Temporary files: RAM or disk?

Ext3 does worse than ext2 because it tries to keep metadata consistency, but that is useless for a tmp filesystem, where all files are going to be wiped out on reboot or crash.

It's not a regression, but a conscientious design decision, and that use case is outside of what Ext3 is good for.


(Log in to post comments)

ext3 regression: unnecessarily syncs temporary files

Posted Jun 4, 2012 15:43 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

It's not a regression, but a conscientious design decision

It's a regression due to a conscious design decision. Regression doesn't mean mistake, it means the current thing does something worse than its predecessor. Software developers have a bias against regressions, but they do them deliberately, and for the greater good, all the time.

ext3 regression: unnecessarily syncs temporary files

Posted Jun 4, 2012 21:24 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Regression does mean mistake, and this is clearly not the case.

A more enlightening example: the latest version of the kernel requires more memory than 0.99 but nobody could possibly claim this is a regression. If anything, it's a trade-off.

ext3 regression: unnecessarily syncs temporary files

Posted Jun 5, 2012 1:42 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

the latest version of the kernel requires more memory than 0.99 but nobody could possibly claim this is a regression

I claim that's a regression. Another area where kernel releases have steadily regressed: they run more slowly. And there are machines current kernels won't run on at all that previous ones could. Another regression.

I'm just going by plain meaning of the word (informed somewhat by it's etymology, the Latin for "step backward."). And the fact that it's really useful to be able to talk about the steps backward without regard to whether they're worth it.

Everyone recognizes that sometimes you have to regress in some areas in order to progress in others. And sometimes it's a matter of opinion whether the tradeoff is right. For example, regression testing often uncovers the fact that the new release runs so much slower than the previous one that some people consider it a mistake and it gets "fixed."

I like to use Opera, but almost every upgrade I've ever done has contained functional regressions, usually intentional. As they are often regressions that matter to me, I tend not to upgrade Opera (and it makes no difference to me whether it's a bug or not).

ext3 regression: unnecessarily syncs temporary files

Posted Jun 5, 2012 8:35 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Whatever, keep using 0.99 then, or better go back to first version that just printed AAAABBBB on the screen. Everything from there is a regression.

ext3 regression: unnecessarily syncs temporary files

Posted Jun 5, 2012 14:25 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Whatever, keep using 0.99 then, or better go back to first version that just printed AAAABBBB on the screen. Everything from there is a regression.

Everything since this is a regression in certain areas, but you seem to be missing the essential point that I stated several ways: These regressions come along with progressions. The value of the progressions outweigh the cost of the regressions. I hate in some way every "upgrade" I make, but I make them anyway.

Everyone has to balance the regressions and the progressions in deciding whether to upgrade, and distributors tend to make sure the balance is almost always in favor of the progressions. We can speak of a "net regression," which most people would not find current Linux to be with respect to 0.99.


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