Ian Stirling wrote:
David Masover wrote:
David Lang wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:
Oh, I'm curious -- do hard drives ever carry enough
battery/capacitance to cover their caches? It doesn't seem like it
would be that hard/expensive, and if it is done that way, then I
think it's valid to leave them on. You could just say that other
filesystems aren't taking as much advantage of newer drive features
as Reiser :P
there are no drives that have the ability to flush their cache after
they loose power.
Aha, so back to the usual argument: UPS! It takes a fraction of a
second to flush that cache.
You probably don't actually want to flush the cache - but to write
to a journal.
16M of cache - split into 32000 writes to single sectors spread over
the disk could well take several minutes to write. Slapping it onto
a journal would take well under .2 seconds.
That's a non-trivial amount of storage though - 3J or so, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
a moderately large/expensive capacitor.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, remember: ~$200 buys you a huge
amount of battery storage. We're talking several minutes for several
boxes, at the very least -- more like 10 minutes.
But yes, a journal or a software suspend.
