Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's

From: Jens Axboe (axboe@suse.de)
Date: Fri Mar 09 2001 - 06:51:48 EST

Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: quicksort for linked list"
Previous message: Russell King: "test for someones cocked up mail system"
In reply to: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Next in thread: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Reply: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Mar 09 2001, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs:
> > On Wed, Mar 07 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > > SCSI certainly lets us do both of these operations independently. IDE
> > > has the sync/flush command afaik, but I'm not sure whether the IDE
> > > tagged command stuff has the equivalent of SCSI's ordered tag bits.
> > > Andre?
> >
> > IDE has no concept of ordered tags...
> >
> But most disks these days support IDE-SCSI, and SCSI does have ordered
> tags, so...

Any proof to back this up? To my knowledge, only some WDC ATA disks
can be ATAPI driven.

-- Jens Axboe

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: quicksort for linked list"
Previous message: Russell King: "test for someones cocked up mail system"
In reply to: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Next in thread: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Reply: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 15 2001 - 21:00:09 EST