> "Daniel O'Connor" wrote: > As you can imagine, this violates the basic assumptions of FFS and softdep. > They assume that only sectors that are written to are at risk, and do all > their ordering based on that assumption. But the assumption is completely > bogus. Even with no-caching it doesn't work because if the drive loses > power after only having written half of the track, then you risk losing the > rest - the track is written from "wherever", and not any index marks. ie: > the track is just as likely to overwrite the second half of the sectors > first, and when you lose power, you have two copies of the first half of > the sectors. Basically you have to assume that the entire track and > all of the nearby sectors could get lost or trashed. I usually lose 4..8 sectors cluster on fast power down on IBM IDE drives. Repairable.
-- @BABOLO http://links.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
