Greg Stark wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
>
> > Sweet. It may be that the promise is turning off the cache, or that the
> > new generation of IDE drives is finally reporting fsync correctly. Was
> > there a performance difference in the set with write cache on or off?
>
> Check out this thread. It seems the ATA standard does not include any way to
> make fsync work properly without destroying performance. At least on linux
> even that much is impossible without disabling caching entirely as the
> operation required isn't exposed to user-space. There is some hope for the
> future though.
>
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0310.2/0163.html
I thought the operating system has to write the block and force it to
disk, and that happened the same with SCSI and IDE. I didn't assume the
drive would associate multiple blocks with the fsync.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
