On 14 Feb 2011, at 7:33am, Max Vlasov wrote: > The first variation was similar to the one with bus-powered, this time I > used hard button on the box that is equivalent to unplugging both connection > and power. The difference for a single test was really impressive 5355 -> > 4445 = -910. And when I calculated numbers for non-interrupted test the > drive showed about 300 commits per second. > > The second variation was just unplugging the cord but keeping the power > intact, so if it's drive that caches, it would end its operations > completely. This time the results were perfect, for example 4822 -> 4822, > and even 5371 -> 5372 = +1 that actually would mean the process was > interrupted after all data is written but before sqlite made winsync, os > reported failure, but the data was already there. > > So the sad news about faulty hardware is probably true once again.
Can you expand upon your conclusion ? I like your test, and am interested to know precisely where you think the lag is happening. You may be able to find either low-level OS settings or drive jumper positions which will change the results. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
