Re: soft update should be default

2001-05-14 Thread dannyman
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:39:51PM -0400, Chris BeHanna wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2001, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: [...] I've heard that it always keeps consistency. So you can skip fsck after the crash. #I don't know the detail, so please someone correct me if I'm wrong. I've had a number of

What's the conclusion? (was soft update should be default)

2001-05-07 Thread Tadayuki OKADA
On Fri, 04 May 2001 18:42:54 -0700 Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why 'soft update' is not default? It adds performance and stability, doesn't it? It requires disabling of write caching, which typically reduces performance (significantly). If this is the only problem, I think

Re: Tagged Queueing and ATA driver (was soft update should be default)

2001-05-06 Thread Matt Dillon
Gee, maybe in another few years IDE will have implement the *entire* SCSI command set! Now wouldn't that be progress! Not! You will never see me turn on tagged queueing for IDE. If performance is an issue, SCSI is the solution. I want my data cooked over-easy thank you

Re: soft update should be default

2001-05-06 Thread Dave Tweten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: WCE very dangerous. WCE very dangerous. WCE very dangerous. True, but since the new ATA driver was installed in STABLE about February 25, WCE has also become mandatory for my NEC Versa 6050 MX laptop. If I don't set hw.ata.wc=1, kernel buffers become corrupted.

Re[2]: soft update should be default

2001-05-06 Thread Charlie Watts
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hello Charlie, Sunday, May 06, 2001, 1:53:20 AM, you wrote: I see the same behaviour on one of those disks, too. But - aren't IBM's DTLA-series disks the only IDE drives that support TCQ? [ It's a -very-

Re[2]: soft update should be default

2001-05-06 Thread Charlie Watts
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hello Charlie, Sunday, May 06, 2001, 1:53:20 AM, you wrote: IBM DLTA-307030 Ultra ATA drive (tags/no WC vs. no tags/WC). With neither option, it is terrible, of course. I see the same behaviour on one of

Re: soft update should be default

2001-05-05 Thread Nick Sayer
Nick Barnes wrote: This sounds as if there isn't _any_ way for the kernel (or, better, an application) to make sure that its bits have got written. Is that really true? Shouldn't the man pages for fsync(1), fsync(2), and sync(8) reflect this? sync(2) has something under BUGS Sure

Re: soft update should be default

2001-05-05 Thread Kevin Oberman
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 09:31:09 -0700 From: Nick Sayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That may be the original intent, but cheap IDE drives let you turn on write caching, and they're for sure not battery-backed (nor do they attempt to store enough power at power-off to