Ron Mayer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Agreed, thought I thought the problem was that SSDs lie about their
> > cache flush like SATA drives do, or is there something I am missing?
> There's exactly one case I can find where this century's IDE
> drives lied more than any other drive with a cache:
> Under 120GB Maxtor drives from late 2003 to early 2004.
> and it's apparently been worked around for years.
> Those drives claimed to support the "FLUSH_CACHE_EXT" feature (IDE
> command 0xEA), but did not support sending 48-bit commands which
> was needed to send the cache flushing command.
> And for that case a workaround for Linux was quickly identified by
> checking for *both* the support for 48-bit commands and support for the
> flush cache extension.
> Beyond those 2004 drive + 2003 kernel systems, I think most the rest
> of such reports have been various misfeatures in some of Linux's
> filesystems (like EXT3 that only wants to send drives cache-flushing
> commands when inode change) and linux software raid misfeatures....
> ...and ISTM those would affect SSDs the same way they'd affect SATA drives.
I think the point is not that drives lie about their write-back and
write-through behavior, but rather that many SATA/IDE drives default to
write-back, and not write-through, and many administrators an file
systems are not aware of this behavior.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: George Sexton||Date: 2010-02-22 15:04:59|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-22 14:37:13|
|Subject: Re: SSD + RAID|