Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gusi.leathercollection.ph (gusi.leathercollection.ph [202.163.192.10]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id i5U0pmgi023925 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:51:49 -0700 Received: from localhost (lawin.alabang.leathercollection.ph [192.168.0.2]) by gusi.leathercollection.ph (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6176A88A66D for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:51:46 +0800 (PHT) Received: from lawin.alabang.leathercollection.ph (lawin.alabang.leathercollection.ph [192.168.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gusi.leathercollection.ph (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9AA288A66C for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:51:40 +0800 (PHT) Received: by lawin.alabang.leathercollection.ph (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3DBE9A54F1B5; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:51:39 +0800 (PHT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:51:39 +0800 From: Federico Sevilla III To: Linux-XFS Mailing List Subject: Hard Drive Cache Size and XFS Performance Message-ID: <20040630005139.GA1096@leathercollection.ph> Mail-Followup-To: Linux-XFS Mailing List Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Organization: The Leather Collection, Inc. X-Organization-URL: http://www.leathercollection.ph X-Personal-URL: http://jijo.free.net.ph User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at leathercollection.ph X-archive-position: 3569 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: jijo@free.net.ph Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 702 Lines: 21 Hi everyone, Please pardon this very basic question. For single-hard-drive IDE systems with write cache disabled, how significantly does a hard drive's cache size affect the performance of XFS, all other factors being equal? We're evaluating hard drives and are comparing two identical Seagate 7200RPM drives, the only differences between them being the cache size (2MB vs 8MB) and price. Does XFS benefit from a modern hard drive's use of its internal cache read-ahead only (since write caching is disabled)? Thank you very much. :) --> Jijo -- Federico Sevilla III : jijo.free.net.ph : When we speak of free software GNU/Linux Specialist : GnuPG 0x93B746BE : we refer to freedom, not price.