Re: reported cache size??:silly

mlord (mlord@pobox.com)
Thu, 09 May 1996 22:12:25 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Alan V. Shackelford: ""Long of Tooth""
Previous message: Michael Elkins: "modules and linux-1.3.{99,100}"
Maybe in reply to: Ethan Emeson: "reported cache size??:silly"

Ethan Emeson wrote:
>
> I bought my 2 gig EIDE HD understanding it to have a 256kb cache, yet at
> boot time (1.3.9x..8) its reported to have only 128kb... Should I accept
> this value as fact, or is the kernel limited in its ability to
> accurately report HD cache size?

You should accept that value as what the drive itself
thinks that it has. The Linux IDE driver simply asks the drive
to provide this info, and dumps out what the drive says.

If this drive is a Western Digital drive, the single-letter suffix
after the model number also provides an indication of on-drive buffer
size. 'H' == 128k. For example, the 1GB "AC31000H" drive has 128kB,
whereas the later cost-reduced version "AC31000G" has only 64kB.

-ml
(the Linux IDE guy)

Next message: Alan V. Shackelford: ""Long of Tooth""
Previous message: Michael Elkins: "modules and linux-1.3.{99,100}"
Maybe in reply to: Ethan Emeson: "reported cache size??:silly"