atom feed19 messages in org.opensolaris.zfs-discussRe: [zfs-discuss] Does your device ho...
FromSent OnAttachments
Bryant EadonFeb 10, 2009 10:35 am 
Peter SchullerFeb 10, 2009 10:52 am 
Miles NordinFeb 10, 2009 11:23 am 
Chris RiddFeb 10, 2009 11:27 am 
TimFeb 10, 2009 12:19 pm 
Peter SchullerFeb 10, 2009 1:36 pm 
David Collier-BrownFeb 10, 2009 1:55 pm 
Miles NordinFeb 10, 2009 2:56 pm 
Peter SchullerFeb 10, 2009 3:45 pm 
Bob FriesenhahnFeb 10, 2009 4:08 pm 
Jeff BonwickFeb 10, 2009 4:41 pm 
Toby ThainFeb 10, 2009 5:23 pm 
Miles NordinFeb 10, 2009 6:10 pm 
Frank CusackFeb 10, 2009 7:36 pm 
Toby ThainFeb 10, 2009 8:53 pm 
Bryant EadonFeb 10, 2009 10:28 pm 
Eric D. MudamaFeb 11, 2009 12:25 am 
David Dyer-BennetFeb 11, 2009 7:27 am 
Frank CusackFeb 11, 2009 8:24 am 
Subject:Re: [zfs-discuss] Does your device honor write barriers?
From:Frank Cusack (fcus@fcusack.com)
Date:Feb 11, 2009 8:24:19 am
List:org.opensolaris.zfs-discuss

On February 10, 2009 11:53:39 PM -0500 Toby Thain <to@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:

On 10-Feb-09, at 10:36 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:

On February 10, 2009 4:41:35 PM -0800 Jeff Bonwick <Jeff@sun.com> wrote:

Not if the disk drive just *ignores* barrier and flush-cache commands and returns success. Some consumer drives really do exactly that.

ouch.

If it were possible to detect such disks, I'd add code to ZFS that would simply refuse to use them. Unfortunately, there is no reliable way to test the functioning of synchonize-cache programmatically.

How about a database of known bad drives? Like the format.dat of old.

The intransigence of disk makers is incredible. Name and shame might work, though.

I, for one, don't really care about shaming any vendor. I care about not using broken products. The database need not be compiled by Sun, but it should (ideally) be distributed by them (in OpenSolaris) and supported by zfs.

-frank