> Right. This is an example of an implementation that becomes
> "unreasonable" if you allow the disk to hold up "block #1"
> indefinitively. I mean you could be recieving news for hours
> (i.e. gigabytes), and on a crash this would all get undone.
I thought modern drives "aged" the cached information and write it to disk
out of order w.r.t. the scheduling algorithm if it was too old. Otherwise
you would get some really interesting starvation problems under most os:s
with some bad corruption as a result on any heavily loaded machine.
Peter
-- Peter Svensson ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint: <petersv@df.lth.se> ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3 07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu