>>> IMO, once NFS rules are conceded, might was well go hog wild with
>>> write-back caching.  Why not.  Loss is loss.
>> But there's loss and then there's loss.  [...]
> Absolutely true. Then, there's "stable", which means no loss (with
> respect to acknowledged file ops, ala NFS stability rules).  You've
> rather forcefully made my point.  Not really worth quibiling about
> which kind of loss is acceptable or unacceptable.

If you consider it quibbling, _you_ have missed _my_ point, which is
that yes, some people consider some kinds of loss risk acceptable while
considering other kinds of loss risk unacceptable.  For example, I
consider my first example ("if you lose power the file being written
may have garbage contents") acceptable; I do not consider my third
example ("if you lose power you mgiht as well re-newfs") acceptable.

> The goal, really, is commercially accepted standard of stability.

"The" goal?

*Your* goal, perhaps.  Others' goals may well be - and in many cases
doubtless are - different.  (I also disagree with your implicit
assertion that the level of stability specified for an NFS server is
the "commercially accepted standard of stability", but that's really
incidental to my principal point here.)

Of course, if you believe you have a filesystem that provides all these
things (speed, stability, light weight, simple code) at once, please,
make that clear, and contribute the code!

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B