You need more than just "no caching". You need to dismount the volume, so that the NT device driver reloads ALL state relevant to the disk. See FSCTL_DISMOUNT_VOLUME. This is also provided via "fsutil volume dismount X:".
I don't see how this is relevant to "advanced .Net" topics, though. -- arlie -----Original Message----- From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Day Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] XP Disk Caching Issue Marc Granted, we have tried the Enable Write Caching checks - but IS this a cast iron way of guaranteeing data will not be held by XP until later, and the FAT table will be updated instantly? > I HOPE you don't mean you have two PCs on the same SCSI bus, > talking to the > same drive... that would be bad unless you're writing the underlying > file-system and coordinating writes between the multiple > masters. (see this > done, hated it with a passion) Yes, sort of. The other machine is a non-Windows unit which has its own SCSI controller, and internal HD. The user community is quite used to this set up with Windows 98 and previous, and users know not to mix and match the controller functions, and to set the device as Removeable. And the third party box is extremely well behaved - it finishes what it does and gets away from the HD. But it has a 40x8 LCD display and limited controls which makes disk managment difficult, when compared with drag and drop control in Windows. And there are other issues that I need to solve with software - eg. long names are not supported by the drive format, but XP knows seems to know no limits - and this has caused corruption already. So there is a strong motivation here for a software solution. So I was hoping that there may be either a programmatic way to ensure that the file system updates at the time, or perhaps a process which if followed would cause that same effect. For example, if XP performed a write, a directory change, a read, and then went back to the first directory - that would maybe force the flushing of any extra data held en route? > Why not just use Windows shares on the owning machine? If I understand your question, I think the answer lies in the fact that the third-party box is non-Windows. with kind regards DD. David Day STL EPOS Project DDL: 2183 Tel: 01228 611836 =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://www.develop.com NEW! ASP.NET courses you may be interested in: 2 Days of ASP.NET, 29 Sept 2003, in Redmond http://www.develop.com/courses/2daspdotnet Guerrilla ASP.NET, 13 Oct 2003, in Boston http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnet View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
