Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux

[Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 16:58, Jens Axboe wrote:

> There are still unknowns, the HD still being the biggest one of course.
> The problem is that you don't know the worst case HD performance, it
> might be doing all sorts of rewriting, calibration, error correct etc
> that can still screw you. So I think without definitely knowledge of
> what the HD will do in case of errors (or a way to control that which
> you definitely can on some drives), it's still pretty hazy. It gets
> better, but if you are looking for complete guarantees I don't think
> it's good enough.

Yes, but GRIO has exactly the same problem. I assume they need custom
calibration for each IO subsystem.

-Andi