lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 30 Dec 2005 10:58:40 -0800 (PST)
FromKenny Simpson <>
SubjectRe: RAID controller safety
--- Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Gwe, 2005-12-30 at 08:18 -0800, Kenny Simpson wrote:
> > That's what I read in the comments too, but looking at the code I only ever see it set to
> > write-back. I verified this with blktool - our controllers have no battery, and blktool
> showed
> > the i2o-wcache state as write-back.
> blktool doesn't support i2o control as far as I am aware. The blk level
> generic ioctls are just too crude to control it properly.

From man blktool dated August 2004:
i2o-wcache
Query or set an I2O block device's write cache.

>
> > However, I was also told that the i2o_block driver lacks barrier support, so even in the
> > write-back case, the controller won't be told to flush/sync.
>
> Correct, but it should only ever enable this in the battery backed case.
> Otherwise it uses the per command control bits to decide what mode it
> wishes to use for each I/O

So all writes would be treated as syncronous in the write-through case (no battery), making fsync
a no-op?

-Kenny





__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-30 20:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2010