This message is from the T13 list server.
All modern HDD's have a buffer for write cache that is used to stack up
write data from both queued and unqueued write commands. A write command
followed by a flush cache command will likely not move the data from the
last write command to the media until the rest of the data is the write
cache is written. If a write FUA command is used the data from the write
FUA command will be given priority over the other data in the write cache
and be written first.
Regards,
Steve Livaccari
Hard Drive Engineering
IBM Global Procurement
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone (919) 543.7393
"Curtis Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
oo.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rg
06/17/2003 11:09
PM
This message is from the T13 list server.
Gary
As I recall, there were some inacuracies in the proposals as made to
the
committee. There were many revisions. The only new FUA commands that make
sense are the queued ones. All others could be followed by flush cache.
---------------------------
Curtis E. Stevens
29 Dewey
Irvine, Ca 92620
Home: (949) 552-4777
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the
face...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Laatsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Curtis Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "T13 List Server"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments?
> Curtis and Hale,
>
> Also, to expand upon this. I think Hale's point is the proposal put
> forth by Nita didn't contain the QUEUE FUA or QUEUE FUA EXT commands and
he
> was wondering where they were added or how they were proposed. My memory
was
> this was discussed and added at the June 2002 meetings. That is why I
was
> wondering if anyone else remembered these discussions. I remember
> discussing all of this stuff (even Andre's comments about the FUA blowig
> away the queue) but for some reason it just wasn't captured very well in
the
> minutes.
>
> Gary Laatsch
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Curtis Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [t13] hmmm.. no comments?
>
>
> > This message is from the T13 list server.
> >
> >
> > Hale
> >
> > I was there during the discussions and there was no secret
committee.
> > Basically, MS stated that they wanted to force meta data to the drive
> > without blowing the que. This means that although it is possible to
lose
> > data, in their application data loss would not occur...
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > Curtis E. Stevens
> > 29 Dewey
> > Irvine, Ca 92620
> >
> > Home: (949) 552-4777
> > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the
> face...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hale Landis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "T13 List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:57 AM
> > Subject: [t13] hmmm.. no comments?
> >
> >
> > > This message is from the T13 list server.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm curious why there are no comments about the question of the
> > > origin of the WRITE DMA QUEUED FUA command (where is the proposal?).
> > > And why no comments on QUEUED EXT commands with large sector counts.
> > >
> > > Is this because all these discussions must take place via the "secret
> > > society"?
> > >
> > > Hale
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
> > >
> > >
> >
