On 14 Jul, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:38:15 +0200
>> From: Anatoliy Dmytriyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Hello, everybody!
>>
>> I have found unusual and dangerous situation with shutdown process:
>> I did a copy of 200 GB data on the 870 GB part
On 14 Jul, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>>> How can I fix it on my system?
>>
>>SCSI or ATA? If it's ATA, turn off write cache with (atacontrol(8) or
>>the sysctl.
>
> You do NOT want to do that. Not only will performance drop brutally
> (example: drop to 1/5th of normal write
[ ...crossposting trimmed... ]
Sergey N. Voronkov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:17:06PM -0400, asym wrote:
[ ... ]
The funny thing about all the replies here.. is that this guy is not saying
that sync doesn't work.
He's saying that the timeout built into shutdown causes it to *terminate*
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:17:06PM -0400, asym wrote:
> At 15:19 7/14/2005, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:14:49PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote..
> >> > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:38:15 +0200
> >> > From: Anatoliy Dmytriyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Jon Dama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> however, journaling fairs no better, and request barriers do nothing to
>> solve the problem.
>
>I had assumed that the sequence of operations in a journal would be
>idempotent. Is that a reasonable design criteri
Jon Dama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> softupdates is perfectly safe with SCSI.
>
> its well known that ide and sata w/wo ncq fails to provide suitable
> semantics for softupdates
>
> however, journaling fairs no better, and request barriers do nothing to
> solve the problem.
I had assumed that
if the FUA bit in the sata command header is properly respected.
if the flush cache command on an ata device is properly respected.
if the flush cache command on an ata device is implemented (it's optional)
if the flush cache command exists when the ata device was made (it isn't
in the earlier
Jon Dama wrote:
>Request Barriers under linux exist to prevent the low level kernel block
>device layer from reordering write operations from the upper file system
>layers. Request Barriers consist of nothing more than tagging internal
>queues within the Linux kernel itself. They do nothing to r
At 15:19 7/14/2005, Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:14:49PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote..
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:38:15 +0200
> > From: Anatoliy Dmytriyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Hello, everybody!
> >
> > I have found unusual and dangerous situ
Kevin Oberman wrote:
SCSI or ATA? If it's ATA, turn off write cache with (atacontrol(8) or
the sysctl.
The problem is that disks lie about whether they have actually written
data. If the power goes off before the data is in cache, it's lost.
I am not sure if write-cache can be turned off on SC
> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:38:15 +0200
> From: Anatoliy Dmytriyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hello, everybody!
>
> I have found unusual and dangerous situation with shutdown process:
> I did a copy of 200 GB data on the 870 GB partition (softupdates is
> enabled) by cp
11 matches
Mail list logo
