Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:47:16 -0600 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <199912120047.SAA08385@nospam.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> of "Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:26:07 MST." <4.2.0.58.19991211131141.046bc880@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass writes: > I sometimes long for the days of ESDI, where the host could control > EVERYTHING about the way the drive was read and written. (I did > some experiments which involved positioning the head on a blank track > when a write was expected, then writing the data to the very next > sector that came along while simultaneously updating an intention FIFO > for the metadata on a different spindle. The metadata itself was updated > later, so the intention log kept things from getting out of sync > due to power loss. You could pull the plug on that machine when the > disks were grinding away and never lose a thing.) How similar is that to the log partition in SGI's XFS? There was no restriction as to what spindle the log filesystem was placed. Quite to the contrary, it was indicated using a separate drive on a separate SCSI bus would help performance. XFS for Linux was to be released by now. I haven't been paying attention. Was it? -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912120047.SAA08385>