Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:09:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:09:38 -0400 Received: from 91dyn252.com21.casema.net ([62.234.22.252]:57552 "EHLO abraracourcix.bitwizard.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:09:35 -0400 Message-Id: <200204081209.OAA12003@cave.bitwizard.nl> Subject: Re: faster boots? In-Reply-To: <200204060007.g3607I525699@lmail.actcom.co.il> from Itai Nahshon at "Apr 6, 2002 03:07:05 am" To: Itai Nahshon Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:09:29 +0200 (MEST) CC: Benjamin LaHaise , Alan Cox , Richard Gooch , Andrew Morton , joeja@mindspring.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl (Rogier Wolff) X-notice1: This Email contains my Email address. This grants you the right X-notice2: to communicate with me using this address, related to the subject X-notice3: in this message. Unsollicitated mass-mailings are explictly X-notice4: forbidden here, and by Dutch law. X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL60 (25)] 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 Itai Nahshon wrote: > On Saturday 06 April 2002 02:07 am, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 02:02:36AM +0300, Itai Nahshon wrote: > > > A required feature IMHO: there should _never_ be dirty blocks > > > for disks that are not spinning. > > > > Never make assertions like that: on my laptop, I want *lots* of > > dirty blocks held in memory while the disk isn't spinning. Keeping > > RAM powered is much less costly than spinning the disk up. > > > > -ben > > I figure that if there are dirty blocks that belong to files that you > want to keep, they must be flushed at some time, probably on the > next sync(). On "normal" systems that's likely to happen in less > than a minute. > > I admit that what I had in mind was medium-large systems with > multiple disks where some of the disks have very little activity > or small systems where there is really zero disk activity for > a long time. > > I'm curios, how much work can you accomplish on your laptop > without any disk access (but you still need to save files - keeping > them in buffers until it's time to actually write them). On a laptop you can decide to "trust" the drive to spin up, just because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The benefit may be: Battery life becomes 8 hours instead of 4. That might mean that you get 4 hours of extra work done while travelling at $100 per hour.... Just editing source-code using VI, or reading docs can leave your disk completely idle for hours at a time. Debugging an app, compiling testing, recompiling can leave your disk idle provided you accept dirty blocks in the buffer cache... Roger. -- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - 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/