lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck)
    On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
    > > Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
    > > disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
    > > using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
    > > It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
    > > because writeback cache is a big performance booster.
    >
    > AFAIK no drive saves the cache. The worst case cache flush for drives is
    > several seconds with no retries and a couple of minutes if something
    > really bad happens.
    >
    > This is why the kernel has some knowledge of barriers and uses them to
    > issue flushes when needed.

    Indeed, you are right, which is supported by actual measurements:

    http://sr5tech.com/write_back_cache_experiments.htm

    Sorry for implying that anybody has engineered a drive that can do
    such a nice thing with writeback cache.

    The "disk motor as a generator" tale may not be purely folklore. When
    an IDE drive is not in writeback mode, something special needs to done
    to ensure the last write to media is not a scribble.

    A small UPS can make writeback mode actually reliable, provided the
    system is smart enough to take the drives out of writeback mode when
    the line power is off.

    Regards,

    Daniel


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-16 02:27    [W:0.021 / U:29.524 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site