i was under the impression it was virtualbox and it's default setting that ignored the command, not the hard drive
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Eric D. Mudama <edmud...@bounceswoosh.org>wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26 at 1:47, David Magda wrote: > >> >> On Jul 25, 2009, at 16:30, Carson Gaspar wrote: >> >> Frank Middleton wrote: >>> >>> Doesn't this mean /any/ hardware might have this problem, albeit with >>>> much lower probability? >>>> >>> >>> No. You'll lose unwritten data, but won't corrupt the pool, because the >>> on-disk state will be sane, as long as your iSCSI stack doesn't lie about >>> data commits or ignore cache flush commands. >>> >> >> But this entire thread started because Virtual Box's virtual disk / >> did/ lie about data commits. >> >> Why is this so difficult for people to understand? >>> >> >> Because most people make the (not unreasonable assumption) that disks save >> data the way that they're supposed to: that the data goes in is the data >> that comes out, and that when the OS tells them to empty the buffer that >> they actually flush it. >> >> It's only us storage geeks that generally know the ugly truth that this >> assumption is not always true. :) >> > > Can *someone* please name a single drive+firmware or RAID > controller+firmware that ignores FLUSH CACHE / FLUSH CACHE EXT > commands? Or worse, responds "ok" when the flush hasn't occurred? > > Everyone on this list seems to blame lying hardware for ignoring > commands, but disks are relatively mature and I can't believe that > major OEMs would qualify disks or other hardware that willingly ignore > commands. > > --eric > > -- > Eric D. Mudama > edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
