Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751285AbVL3S6m (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:58:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751287AbVL3S6m (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:58:42 -0500 Received: from web34113.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.163.178.111]:29805 "HELO web34113.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751285AbVL3S6l (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:58:41 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GOwsMSG3qykAbKJOjNd0jovsbLe4e5MT2j8s+bEyazH4Int6G5TZh7rrivwqpUlzlfsabRbp3KfJCZ5MvPJF0QVmX1VlbqIcDiymSVqZAfUpM8VkpUENED5m5qL/J3InaSXKgdCm5HINg0B5a7B9yeTSUKo4En3oxKlkBX5pQwI= ; Message-ID: <20051230185840.52264.qmail@web34113.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:58:40 -0800 (PST) From: Kenny Simpson Subject: Re: RAID controller safety To: Alan Cox Cc: linux kernel In-Reply-To: <1135966830.28365.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1433 Lines: 39 --- Alan Cox wrote: > On Gwe, 2005-12-30 at 08:18 -0800, Kenny Simpson wrote: > > That's what I read in the comments too, but looking at the code I only ever see it set to > > write-back. I verified this with blktool - our controllers have no battery, and blktool > showed > > the i2o-wcache state as write-back. > > blktool doesn't support i2o control as far as I am aware. The blk level > generic ioctls are just too crude to control it properly. >From man blktool dated August 2004: i2o-wcache Query or set an I2O block device's write cache. > > > However, I was also told that the i2o_block driver lacks barrier support, so even in the > > write-back case, the controller won't be told to flush/sync. > > Correct, but it should only ever enable this in the battery backed case. > Otherwise it uses the per command control bits to decide what mode it > wishes to use for each I/O So all writes would be treated as syncronous in the write-through case (no battery), making fsync a no-op? -Kenny __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/