Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:06:47 +0800 | From | Max Waterman <> | Subject | Re: io performance... |
| |
Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > Max Waterman wrote: > >> Jeff V. Merkey wrote: >> >>> Max Waterman wrote: >>> >>>> One further question. I get these messages 'in' dmesg : >>>> >>>> sda: asking for cache data failed >>>> sda: assuming drive cache: write through >>>> >>>> How can I force it to be 'write back'? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Forcing write back is a very bad idea unless you have a battery >>> backed up RAID controller. >> >> >> We do. >> >> In any case, I wonder what the consequences of assuming 'write >> through' when the array is configured as 'write back'? Is it just >> different settings for different caches? > > > It is. This is something that should be configured in a RAID > controller. OS should always be write through.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up, though I now wonder why the message is there.
<shrug>
Max.
> > Jeff > >> >> Max. >> >>> Jeff >>> >>>> >>>> Max. >>>> - >>>> 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/ >>>> >>> >> >> >
- 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/
| |