Paul Mather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Why would that necessarily be more successful? If the outstanding >buffers count is not reducing between time intervals, it is most likely >because there is some underlying hardware problem (e.g., a bad block). >If the count still persists in staying put, it likely means whatever the >hardware is doing to try and fix things (e.g., write reallocation) isn't >working, and so the kernel may as well give up.
So the kernel is relying on guesswork whether the buffers are flushed or not... >You can enumerate the buffers and *try* to write them, but that doesn't >guarantee they will be written successfully any more than observing the >relative number left outstanding. That's rather nonsensical. If I write each buffer synchronously (and wait for the disk's response) this is for sure a lot more reliable than observing changes in the number of remaining buffers. I mean, where's the sense in the latter? It would be analogous to, in userspace, having to monitor write(2) continuously over a given time interval and check whether the number it returns eventually reaches zero. That's complete madness, imho. mkb. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
