On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:
Oh, I'm curious -- do hard drives ever carry enough battery/capacitance to cover their caches? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard/expensive, and if it is done that way, then I think it's valid to leave them on. You could just say that other filesystems aren't taking as much advantage of newer drive features as Reiser :P
there are no drives that have the ability to flush their cache after they loose power.
now, that being said, /. had a story within the last couple of days about hard drive manufacturers adding flash to their hard drives. they may be aiming to add some non-volitile cache capability to their drives, although I didn't think that flash writes were that fast (needed if you dump the cache to flash when you loose power), or that easy on power (given that you would first loose power), and flash has limited write cycles (needed if you always use the cache).
I've heard to many fancy-sounding drive technologies that never hit the market, I'll wait until thye are actually available before I start counting on them for anything (let alone design/run a filesystem that requires them :-)
external battery backed cache is readily available, either on high-end raid controllers or as seperate ram drives (and in raid array boxes), but nothing on individual drives.
David Lang - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
- Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Horst H. von Brand" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: David Lang <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: David Lang <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: David Masover <[email protected]>
- Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 2/2] headers_check: improve #include regexp
- Next by Date: Re: [Fastboot] [CFT] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages
- Previous by thread: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- Next by thread: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- Index(es):
 |