Hi, On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:37:20PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > SCSI has ordered tag, which fit the model Alan described quite nicely. > I've been meaning to implement this for some time, it would be handy > for journalled fs to use such a barrier. Since ATA doesn't do queueing > (at least not in current Linux), a synchronize cache is probably the > only way to go there. Note that you also have to preserve the position of the barrier in the elevator queue, and you need to prevent LVM and soft raid from violating the barrier if different commands end up being sent to different disks. --Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fs... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fs... Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's David Balazic
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Gregory Maxwell
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Mark Hahn
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's David Balazic
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fs... Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Jens Axboe
- Re: scsi vs ide performance o... Chris Mason
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's David Balazic
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Matthias Urlichs