Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:42:05 +0200 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> To: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dangerous situation with shutdown process Message-ID: <200507152342.j6FNg5Tx015427@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> In-Reply-To: Message from David Taylor <davidt@yadt.co.uk> of "Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:46:50 BST." <20050715224650.GA48516@outcold.yadt.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Taylor <davidt@yadt.co.uk> writes: >> A corrupted journal can be detected. If it's corrupted, discard >> the whole thing, or only the relevant entry. The filesystem will >> remain consistent. >> If track corruption occurs after the journal is written, it doesn't >> matter, since at boot the journal will be replayed and all operations >> will be performed once more. > >The track which is corrupted could contain data that wasn't written >to in months. How would the journal help? I don't understand this question. >I still don't trust ATA drives. Can you guarantee (or show any >reason to believe) that disabling the write cache will actually >wait for the cache to be flushed before returning? >Otherwise a <disable cache><enable cache> sequence is exactly >the same as a <flush cache> command. If the drive executes >both immediately, without waiting for the cache to be >flushed _before_ returning, what's the difference? You imply that, because there exists one drive for which it doesn't work, that it follows that it won't work for all drives? Or what is your point? mkb.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507152342.j6FNg5Tx015427>