Re: [PATCHSET block#for-2.6.36-post] block: replace barrier with sequenced flush

[Jens Axboe]

On 2010-08-23 15:58, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 08/23/2010 08:48 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:30:33PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> It might be useful to give several example configurations with
>>> different cache configurations.  I don't have much experience with
>>> battery backed arrays but aren't they suppose to report write through
>>> cache automatically?
>>
>> They usually do.  I have one that doesn't, but SYNCHRONIZE CACHE on
>> it is so fast that it effectively must be a no-op.
>>
> 
> Arrays are not a problem in general - they normally have internally, redundant 
> batteries to hold up the cache.
> 
> The issue is when you have an internal hardware RAID card with a large cache. 
> Those cards sit in your server and the batteries on the card protect its 
> internal cache, but do not have the capacity to hold up the drives behind it.
> 
> Normally, those drives should have their write cache disabled, but sometimes 
> (especially with S-ATA disks) this is not done.

The problem purely exists on arrays that report write back cache enabled
AND don't implement SYNC_CACHE as a noop. Do any of them exist, or are
they purely urban legend?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/