[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:0.020 / U:86.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site