Re: Win32 port powerfail testing

On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:30:17AM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 00:34, Adam Haberlach wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 12:27:31AM -0600, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:36, Dave Page wrote:

> > > Please go with XFS or ext3. There are a number of blessed and horror
> > > stories which still float around about reiserfs (recent and old; even
> > > though I've never lost data with it -- using it now even).
> > >
> > > Might be worth testing FAT32 on NT as well. Even if we don't advocate
> > > it's use, it may not hurt to at least get an understanding of what one
> > > might reasonably expect from it. I'm betting there are people just
> > > waiting to run with FAT32 in the Win32 world. ;)
> >
> > You'd better go with NTFS. There are a number of blessed and horror
> > stories which still float around about FAT32 (recent and old; even though
> > I've never lost data with it -- using it now even now.
> >
> > Might be worth testing reiserfs on Linux as well. Even if we don't
> > advocate it's use, it may not hurt to at least get an understanding of
> > what one my reasonably expect from it. I'm better there are people
> > just waiting to run with reiserfs in the Linux world. ;)
> >
> > Regards, and tongue firmly in cheek,
>
> Touche! :P
>
> While I understand and even appreciate the humor value, I do believe the
> picture is slightly different than your "analysis". If we make
> something that runs on Win32 platforms, might it also run on Win98,
> WinME, etc.? Let's face the facts that should it also run on these
> platforms, it's probably only a matter of time before someone has it
> running on FAT32 (even possible on NT, etc). In other words, I'm fully
> expecting the lowest common denominator of MySQL user to be looking at
> PostgreSQL on Win32. Which potentially means lots of FAT32 use. And
> yes, even for a "production" environment. Ack! Double-ack!

I was just trying to point out the inherent elitist bias in saying
that Microsoft's old filesystem should be tested, even though it's use
is discouraged, while one of Linux's new filesystems shouldn't, even
though it's use is popular. There's a huge double standard here,
caused by fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I'm just personally pretty tired of this anti-Microsoft bias. I'm
going to be frank and say that many of the people here sound like a bunch
of elitist assholes who refuse to sully themselves with a well-used,
well-supported, and lately very useful operating system. For those of
you who know my history (or care), I've supported Solaris, Linux, Win NT
from 3.51 on up, and worked at one of the non-Linux "anti-Microsoft"
companies for 4 years. I worked in a testlab where we tested and broke
NT (usually caused by driver failures), SCO Unix (who KNOWs what made
it panic), and Netware (effectively bulletproof).

The fact is, the Win32 platform is mature. It is a modern operating
system, and just because they don't do some things the way that the
old guard Unix greybeards to doesn't necessarily make it inferior.

What's more, all of this testing of filesystems is pretty moot at
some point. So far, I've lost more data and time due to a bad locking
procedure during vacuums (forcing a lot of quiet in-field upgrades from
7.2.2 to 7.2.3) then I ever expect to lose due to power failure. If we
could spend a little more time testing the actual product and a little
less time worrying about the underlying operating system, I'd be pretty
happy.

...and I'm done discussing the issue for now, since there's not much
more for me to say...

--
Adam Haberlach | "If I have hacked deeper than them, it is
adam(at)mediariffic(dot)com | because I stand in their trenches."
http://mediariffic.com | -- Graham Nelson