Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:32:59 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Soeren Schmidt <sos@spider.deepcore.dk> Cc: des@ofug.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ata ata-all.c ata-all.h ata-chipset.cata-dma.c ata-pci.c ata-pci.h Message-ID: <20030408153259.2a4b03ac.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <200304081327.h38DR9XC025406@spider.deepcore.dk> References: <20030408152227.60c38ce3.Alexander@Leidinger.net> <200304081327.h38DR9XC025406@spider.deepcore.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:27:09 +0200 (CEST)
Soeren Schmidt <sos@spider.deepcore.dk> wrote:
> It seems Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> wrote:
> > > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes:
> > > > For metadata intensive operations in a softupdates world they seem to
> > > > buy as much as a write-cache (without the drawbacks of a wc in the
> > > > softupdates world)... at least on a SCSI system.
> > >
> > > ATA != SCSI
> >
> > Yes... so what's the problem with ATA & TQ?
>
> Its borked at the moment.
I know... let's assume it would work: what's the problem with ATA & TQ
which prevents it from being as effective as the SCSI TQ?
> > > Besides, enabling ATA tags automatically enables the write cache.
> >
> > This can be changed...
>
> No it cannot, requirement of the HW.
Does this mean we can't use ATA-TQ in situations where we would use TQ
without WC on a SCSI system (read: does it affect softupdates)?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030408153259.2a4b03ac.Alexander>