On Wed 13 Jul 2005, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Paul Slootman wrote:
> >Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>What's the gain in parking the head manually if it's done anyway when the
> >>disk spins down (for whatever reason)?
> >
> >
> >It seems you're completely missing the whole point o
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 15:11 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Paul Slootman wrote:
> > Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>What's the gain in parking the head manually if it's done anyway when the
> >>disk
> >>spins down (for whatever reason)?
> >
> >
> > It seems you're completely
Paul Slootman wrote:
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's the gain in parking the head manually if it's done anyway when the disk
spins down (for whatever reason)?
It seems you're completely missing the whole point of this discussion,
which was how to implement the hard disk act
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What's the gain in parking the head manually if it's done anyway when the disk
>spins down (for whatever reason)?
It seems you're completely missing the whole point of this discussion,
which was how to implement the hard disk active protection system
>> Head parking while the system running is almost useless, since sooner or
>> later, someone's going to write/read something.
>
>Correct, that's why we're discussing to freeze the request queue as well.
Sounds good (esp. for laptops/notebooks, which should preferably run "on RAM"
as long as po
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Head parking while the system running is almost useless, since sooner or
> later, someone's going to write/read something.
Correct, that's why we're discussing to freeze the request queue as well.
> If you want head parking
6 matches
Mail list logo
