> Unfortunately, the Intel 520 does *not* power protect it's
> on-board volatile cache (unlike the Intel 320/710 SSD).
> Intel has an eye-opening technology brief, describing the
> benefits of "power-loss data protection" at:
> Intel's brief also clears up a prior controversy of what types of
> data are actually cached, per the brief it's both user and system
So you're saying that SSDs don't generally flush data to stable medium
when instructed to? So data written before an fsync is not guaranteed
to be seen after a power-down?
If that -- ignoring cache flush requests -- is the whole reason why
SSDs are so fast, I'm glad I haven't got one yet.
zfs-discuss mailing list