Thomas Steffen wrote:
On 8/7/06, R. Armiento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And some IDE disks do not let you switch off write-caching. So as far
as I know, you need SCSI for transactional guarantees.
I don't think the fact that there are some buggy drives/firmwares out
there should be taken to m
On 8/7/06, R. Armiento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lets assume this typical website setup: HARDWARE: commodity SATA/PATA;
drive cache is not battery backed up. HOST OS: late Linux 2.6 kernel
(e.g. 2.6.15), directly, on top of host, a recent version of database
software (e.g. MySQL 5.1). Running in
I was talking to a friend at Red Hat. He says what they suggest using ext3, but putting the journal file small separate internal SCSI drive If you do so you will get far better performance and reliability than from reiserfs.
BillOn 8/7/06, R. Armiento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jens Axboe wro
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Should we change to only reiserfs and expect fsync() to commit data
reliably only with that fs? I realise this is a lot of difficult
questions, that apply to more than just Qemu...
Yes, reiser is the only one that works reliably acro
Just to throw in my two cents, I notice that on the namesys website, they claim reiser4 is completely safe in the event of a power failure, while reiserfs 3 still requires some recovery. Apparently in reiser4 they somehow design writes to happen in sequences that create atomic events. So the whol
Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > For SATA you always need at least one cache flush (you need one if you
> > > have the FUA/Forced Unit Access write available, you need two if not).
> >
> > Well my question wasn't intended to be specific to ATA (sorry if that
> > wasn't clear), but a general question about
On Tue, Aug 01 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > If you just want to evict all data from the drive's cache, and don't
> > > > > actually have other data to write, there is a CACHEFLUSH command you
> > > > > can send to the drive which will be more dependable than writing as
>
Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > If you just want to evict all data from the drive's cache, and don't
> > > > actually have other data to write, there is a CACHEFLUSH command you
> > > > can send to the drive which will be more dependable than writing as
> > > > much data as the cache size.
> > >
> > > E
On Tue, Aug 01 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > > Of course, guessing the disk drive write buffer size and trying not to
> > > > kill
> > > > system I/O performance with all these writes is another question
> > > > entirely
> > > > .
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Of course, guessing the disk drive write buffer size and trying not to
> > > kill
> > > system I/O performance with all these writes is another question entirely
> > > ... sigh !!!
> >
> > If you just want to evict all data from t
On Tue, Aug 01 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Of course, guessing the disk drive write buffer size and trying not to kill
> > system I/O performance with all these writes is another question entirely
> > ... sigh !!!
>
> If you just want to evict all data from the drive's cache, and don't
> actuall
Armistead, Jason wrote:
> I've been following the thread about disk data consistency with some
> interest. Given that many IDE disk drives may choose to hold data in their
> write buffers before actually writing it to disk, and given that the
> ordering of the writes may not be the same as the OS
I've been following the thread about disk data consistency with some
interest. Given that many IDE disk drives may choose to hold data in their
write buffers before actually writing it to disk, and given that the
ordering of the writes may not be the same as the OS or application expects,
the only
13 matches
Mail list logo
