lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 17 Jan 2006 21:37:27 -0700
From"Jeff V. Merkey" <>
SubjectRe: io performance...
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.

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 06:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2008