Ric Wheeler wrote: > > Andi Kleen wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:42:42AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: >>> Andi Kleen wrote: >>>> [LVM] always disables barriers if you don't apply a so far unmerged >>>> patch that enables them in some special circumstances (only single >>>> backing device) >>> (I continue to be surprised at the un-safety of Linux fsync) >> Note barrier less does not necessarily always mean unsafe fsync, >> it just often means that. >> >> Also surprisingly lot more syncs or write cache off tend to lower the MTBF >> of your disk significantly, so "unsafer" fsync might actually be more safe >> for your unbackuped data. >> > > Hi Andi, > > Where did you get this data? > > I have never heard that using more barrier operations lowers the reliability or > the MTBF of a drive and I look at a fairly huge population when doing this ;-) Ric, what about the other part - turning write cache off? I've also heard it suggested that this might hurt drive lifespan, and it sorta makes sense, I assume it keeps the head working harder... -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
