Re: libata FUA revisited

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tejun Heo wrote:
Aside from the issue above, as I mentioned elsewhere, lots of NCQ drives
don't support non-NCQ FUA writes..

To me, using the NCQ FUA bit on such drives doesn't seem to be a good
idea.  Maybe I'm just too chicken but it's not like we can gain a lot
from doing FUA at this point.  Are there a lot of drives which support
NCQ but not FUA opcodes?

Well, it's hard to say whether "lots" have this issue, but the ones I have in my machine, Seagate 7200.7 NCQ 160GB (ST3160827AS) and 7200.10 320GB (ST3320620AS), both support NCQ and don't support non-NCQ FUA, and those (especially the latter) seem to be very popular models.

Likely Seagate didn't implement that command since they figured nobody would use that if they had NCQ..

--
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux