On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote: > > It's pretty clear that the IDE drive(r) is *not* waiting for the physical > write to take place before returning control to the user program, whereas > the SCSI drive(r) is. This would not be unexpected. IDE drives generally always do write buffering. I don't even know if you _can_ turn it off. So the drive claims to have written the data as soon as it has made the write buffer. It's definitely not the driver, but the actual drive. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Chris Mason
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Steve Lord
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Andi Kleen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Dan Hollis
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jeremy Hansen
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Linus Torvalds
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Rik van Riel
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Pavel Machek
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Jonathan Morton
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on f... Andre Hedrick
- Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's Douglas Gilbert