lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 18 Jan 2006 15:06:47 +0800
FromMax Waterman <>
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-18 08:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2008