Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:51:44 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [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 <pavel@ucw.cz> 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). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |