Indeed, that would be a problem.
Anyway, some generous souls just gave me an external SCSI drive, so the
case for the IDE is closed. ;-)
But, for future refference, is there a way to tell if an IDE drive is
doing bad things? I mean, other than pressing Reset repeatedly...
Or perhaps someone put up a list of good/bad IDE drives, in regard to
the caching problem...
I guess this should be interesting for anyone using a journalised FS.
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 11:34, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Hm, if that IDE speed is coming from the write-cache on the drive, you
> may as well just put your log on a ramdisk. :) Of course, log
> integrity might suffer on a crash.
> Seriously, unless you -really- trust that write cache, be careful!
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 13:23, Florin Andrei wrote:
> > >From a pure performance perspective, i wonder if anyone tried to put the
> > logdev on IDE while using SCSI for the actual XFS disks/arrays.
> > Theoretically, the new IDE drives should be quite fast, but anyway, if
> > anyone tried that, i'd like to hear whatever good/bad things happened,
> > performance-wise.
> > --
> > Florin Andrei
> > "Still wondering why they called it 'United Linux'. Firstly it sounds
> > like a football team and secondly wouldn't 'Turbo Susiva' have sounded
> > much better?" - Alan Cox
> Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
> sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. 651-683-3102
"Still wondering why they called it 'United Linux'. Firstly it sounds
like a football team and secondly wouldn't 'Turbo Susiva' have sounded
much better?" - Alan Cox