> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say > again that batteries fail too). You seem to be taking what I wrote out > of context, or you are assuming that I am a moron who doesn't know the > basics and run mail servers with write-back cache on controllers and > drives.
No one disables WB cache for 2 reasons: 1. They don't know how 2. They are disappointed with the floppy disk like performance. Bonus: drive vendors tell you not to do it. > > Hope you now know that virtually all PATA & SATA have WB cache enabled. > > Of course I know, as was stated in the previous message, but of > course, as most people, I disable it. > Don't twist what I said. If you read the previous email again, you'll > see that I say "no write-back cache.". And you can repeat this all day long but you simply can not make these assumptions. Yes in theory this would work but that damn reality is so freaking unpredictable. Someone write a patch for that. > Please, point me to hardware that, when met all the above conditions, > is still unreliable for rename(). It would benefit thousands of people > running mail servers. All RAID controllers. And I mean every single last one of them. Including external RAID cards too. You have exactly zero control as to what they do. Write/Back/Through etc they are going to sit on your data regardless of whatever the fruit you want. It is not like I haven't told you this before. Its ok, a lot of people don't get hardware and still pretend they do. I bet you are one of those "can you write me some code that works around those annoying signaling issues?" person.
