[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Well, it's entirely possible that the mid-level SCSI layer is doing
> something horribly stupid.

Well it's in good company as FreeBSD 4.2 on the same hardware
returns the same result (including IDE timings that were too
fast). My timepeg analysis showed that the SCSI disk was consuming
the time, not any of the SCSI layers.

> On the other hand, it's also entirely possible that IDE is just a lot
> better than what the SCSI-bigots tend to claim. It's not all that
> surprising, considering that the PC industry has pushed untold billions of
> dollars into improving IDE, with SCSI as nary a consideration. The above
> may just simply be the Truth, with a capital T.

What exactly do you think fsync() and fdatasync() should
do? If they need to wait for dirty buffers to get flushed
to the disk oxide then multiple reported IDE results to
this thread are defying physics.

Doug Gilbert
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.070 / U:4.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site