The "utility" referenced no longer exists... and its no wonder.
If is most likely that the tester did not have the drives configured
properly.
In almost all cases, if the drive did this, you could not run a
database system with any resiliency.
They would also have problems with shutdown - although as the
comments indicate Windows added a "delay" to try and fix this.
There is a chance that these drives just had bugs that caused the
cache to not be written properly, but that is probably very rare.
More likely, they were testing higher end drives that have this as an
option. If your system is fault tolerant, with back power supplies,
etc. then having the drive do lazy writing, even in response to sync,
can drastically improve the performance - but you need to make sure
the rest of the system is configured for this.
I guess if you buy completely crappy hardware, or a bad system
configuration, you get what you pay for.
On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote:
http://www.h2database.com/html/advanced.html#durability_problems
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/13/0529252
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Mark Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
/A look at the slashdot article seems to indicate the OS may have
been at fault in his case (an update he posted in response to some
slashdot flames). Thats interesting. Wasnt there the last time this
topic came up. Can't remember what java db had the other info...but
looking...
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
