Re: libata in 2.4.24?

[Jeff Garzik]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:31:45AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> 
> Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > > Libata, uses the scsi system instead of the existing ide layer because many
> > > new sata controllers are using an interface that is very similair to scsi
> > > (much like atapi).
> 
> Now I have a different question. Does the scsi-like SATA interface include tcq?

Yes, it does.  But it depends on whether or not the host controller
supports TCQ.


> Because one of the long-standing issues with IDE drives and Postgres is the
> fact that even after issuing an fsync the data may be sitting in the drive's
> buffer.

If true, this is an IDE driver bug...  assuming the drive itself
doesn't lie about FLUSH CACHE results (a few do).


> This doesn't happen with SCSI because the drives aren't forced to lie
> about the data being on disk in order to handle subsequent requests. Turning
> off write-caching on IDE drives absolutely destroys performance.

If the drive lies, there isn't a darned thing we can do about it...


> Do the new SATA drives and controllers provide a solution to this?

If the drive lies, there isn't a darned thing the controller can do
about it, either ;-)

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/