xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: logdev on IDE

To: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: logdev on IDE
From: Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:24:43 -0400
In-reply-to: <1027539660.1648.11.camel@stantz.corp.sgi.com>
Mail-followup-to: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1027535026.1648.5.camel@stantz.corp.sgi.com> <1027535678.14036.28.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> <1027539660.1648.11.camel@stantz.corp.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.99i
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:40:59PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> 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.

Some IDE drives lie about things like write-cache and the ordering of
writes.  For example, you can issue the command to turn write-cache off,
but it doesn't really happen.

Likewise, an IDE drive may report it has written a block of data, but
it hasn't, meaning you can't garantee write ordering.

I wish hard drive reviews would include information like this.  I have
heard that things like the IBM Ultrastar and Seagate Barracuda are fully
compliant with all commands, but have never tried to test the theory.



-- 
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza__________________________________shannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>