Date: 18 Jul 2005 12:00:16 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dangerous situation with shutdown process Message-ID: <44u0is6r5b.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20050716172632.GG752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> References: <20050715224650.GA48516@outcold.yadt.co.uk> <200507152342.j6FNg5Tx015427@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <20050716133710.GA71580@outcold.yadt.co.uk> <20050716141630.GB752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <1121530912.17757.32.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> <44k6jqof72.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20050716172632.GG752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> writes: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > >Well, break it down a little bit. If an ATA drive properly implements > >the cache flush command, then none of the ongoing discussion is > > Are you sure this is the case? Are there sequence points in softupdates > where it issues a flush request and by this guarantees fs integrity? No, you're right. I meant write completions, not cache flushes. I don't know of any drives that do one properly and not the other, but they're certainly not the same thing. > I've read thru McKusick's paper in search for an answer but haven't > found any. All I've read so far on mailing lists and from googling > was that softupdates doesn't work if the wb-cache is enabled. On a lot of "ATA" drives that don't implement the spec properly.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44u0is6r5b.fsf>