Subject: Re: Extension of fsync_range() to permit forcing disk cache flushing
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Daniel Carosone <email@example.com>
Date: 12/21/2004 09:10:40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 09:38:31PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> I really depends on the context. Personally on boxes where reliability
> of the disk system matters, I don't use ATA at all.
That's fine as a goal, but you don't always get the choice. Or
rather, it's always a tradeoff between a bunch of constraints; not
just cost, but also power, physical size, storage capacity/density,
noise, availability from suppliers, controller interfaces on an
existing system, and others.
Sad though it may be, any one of these metrics alone can force your
hand to use ATA (and they often combine), and at that point you're
looking to make the best of what you have to work with.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----