[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:0.085 / U:8.068 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site