[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck)
    On Tue 2008-01-15 18:44:26, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > On Jan 15, 2008 6:07 PM, Pavel Machek <> wrote:
    > > I had write cache enabled on my main computer. Oops. I guess that
    > > means we do need better documentation.
    > 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.

    Is it?

    I guess I should try to measure it. (Linux already does writeback
    caching, with 2GB of memory. I wonder how important disks's 2MB of
    cache can be).
    (cesky, pictures)

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-16 12:55    [W:0.020 / U:7.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site