Re: ext3 vs reiserfs 3.6
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 09:57 -0400, Adam Skutt wrote:
> Michal Palka wrote:
>
> > One thing that many people seem to be missing is the fact that their
> > drives might have write-cache enabled. In that case, even journalling
> > filesystems can be damaged by non-clean unmount if they don't handle the
> > caching issues.
> Nope, not quite right. They're only damaged by drives that either:
> * Lie about their cache (i.e., say write-through while being write-back)
> * Lie about cache-flushes.
But you still have to enable barrier code AFAIK.
>
> That's most (but not all) IDE drives and SATA drives. Most SCSI drives do
> not participate in this behavior.
My commodity SATA drives are detected write-back:
SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back
> > If you use reiserfs or ext3 then you can keep write-cache enabled, since
> > those filesystems support that setup via mount options. Use
> > barrier=flush for reiserfs and barrier=1 for ext3.
> If your drive supports it, which isn't many drives.
Can you give some references? I would like to determine if my drives lie
about flushes.
Thanks,
Michal Palka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a
Reply to: