On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 26.05.2010, at 21:28, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> In the previous discussion Anthony brought up the fact that cache=writeback
>>> is
>>> safe enough considering data integrity
Am 01.06.2010 13:31, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>
> On 26.05.2010, at 21:28, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> In the previous discussion Anthony brought up the fact that cache=writeback
>>> is
>>> safe enough considering data integrity. If so,
On 26.05.2010, at 21:28, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> In the previous discussion Anthony brought up the fact that cache=writeback
>> is
>> safe enough considering data integrity. If so, I don't see a reason not to
>> use
>> it as default, a
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> In the previous discussion Anthony brought up the fact that cache=writeback is
> safe enough considering data integrity. If so, I don't see a reason not to use
> it as default, as it speeds up things a lot.
cache=writeback is not a good def