From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 06:44:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 06:44:29 -0400 Received: from krusty.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE ([129.217.163.1]:25100 "HELO krusty.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 06:44:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:44:40 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.10 improved reiserfs a lot, but could still be better Message-ID: <20010925124440.B1390@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20010925044949.JNOU8313.femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com@there> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Beau Kuiper wrote: > I can imagine how it improves sequenial write performace too. With the > write cache off, the computer cannot send another write request to the IDE > device until the last one had finished. By the time the computer is told > the request was finished and it has sent a new request to the drive, the > disk would have spun out of the place it was supposed to be placed. The > drive will then have to wait for the disk to spin around fully again > before doing the write. With the write cache enabled, several requests can > be placed into the drive buffer and written in the single revolution of > the drive. Might be an explanation. How big are the chunks of data that the kernel sends to the disk? -- Matthias Andree "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin