From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Oct 14 10:54:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo.feral.com [192.67.166.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C1637B40C; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.feral.com (mjacob@mailhost.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by beppo.feral.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9EHs3H07231; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@beppo Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= Cc: Jordan Hubbard , jrossiter@symantec.com, sos@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Severe I/O Problems In-Reply-To: <200110140935.f9E9Z2g25270@freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Søren Schmidt wrote: > It seems Matthew Jacob wrote: > > I don't doubt this. I just would suggest that there is such a spread of h/w > > and configurations that sometimes turning on WC is fantastic, and sometimes > > not so fantastic. > > Hmm, I know of no drives that shuld perform worse with WC on, but your > case shows there could be such problems... I doubt it's just this case. > > > D'ya think you could come up with a little tester program that could predict > > whether WC would make sense for a particular h/w configuration or not? That'd > > be darned usefull. > > Hmm, that should be pretty easy, but I also have to integrate some of > my other stuff so that WC can be changed *safely* with atacontrol... This kind of performance tool would be useful for all drives- even SCSI drives. Just a thought. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message