| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: cache+barriers vs cache+nobarriers vs disabled cache+barriers vs disabled cache+nobarriers |
| From: | Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:07:34 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <200703151339.36259.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20070315092220.1B09B193FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200703151339.36259.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.6 |
Am Donnerstag 15 März 2007 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > But why do you want to disable write cache in the first case? As long > as you are using 2.6.17.7 or later you can safely enable barriers and > and write cache. Hello again, Leon, of couse using write barriers is only possible if the hardware requirements (cache flushes or similar mechanisms) are met. XFS complains if it can't use barriers. See dmesg or log for details. It seems that the mailinglist software broke my GPG signature. It was correct as I sent out the mail. Regards, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: cache+barriers vs cache+nobarriers vs disabled cache+barriers vs disabled cache+nobarriers, Martin Steigerwald |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Should xfs_repair take this long?, Thomas Walker |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: cache+barriers vs cache+nobarriers vs disabled cache+barriers vs disabled cache+nobarriers, Martin Steigerwald |
| Next by Thread: | RE: cache+barriers vs cache+nobarriers vs disabled cache+barriers vs disabled cache+nobarriers, Leon Kolchinsky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |