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 10:04:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:04:08 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:10502 "EHLO deathstar.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:03:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:04:24 -0400 Message-Id: <200109251404.f8PE4Oh06427@deathstar.prodigy.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: [PATCH] 2.4.10 improved reiserfs a lot, but could still be better X-Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel In-Reply-To: <20010924185755.E4126@schmorp.de> Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Reply-To: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20010924185755.E4126@schmorp.de> Marc Lehmann wrote: | On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:53:03PM +0200, Matthias Andree | wrote: | > Linear writing as dd mostly does is BTW something which should never be | > affected by write caches. | | A write cache can and will speed up linear writes on typical ide setups. Pedantically I guess that's true, but I wouldn't expect any significant change unless the drive were badly fragmented, since the write cache on the drive should hold enough data to allow all data to a track to be written in a single revolution. Write cache makes a big difference in normal use, where seeks and such can be optimized, but for a single process writing a single file (ie. dd) I don't see where it would or could help much. Since the single process is not a typical case on most systems, I don't see that it's a burning question. -- bill davidsen "If I were a diplomat, in the best case I'd go hungry. In the worst case, people would die." -- Robert Lipe