Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: fsync on large files | Date | Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:03:49 -0600 (EST) | From | kwrohrer@ce ... |
| |
And lo, Dan Hollis saith unto me: > On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Alan Cox wrote: > > > I've also destroyed maxtors with synchronous syslog. I dont think any > > > drive is up to the task of 50 writes/sec on the same spot on the disk 24/7 > > > for weeks on end. > > According to the vendors own claims it is. From my own experience the > > ibm drives seem to take it fine, and worse. > > Write a program which sync writes to the same spot 50 times/sec 24/7 and > get back to me in two months or so if your ibm drive is still alive.
"The" same spot? Wouldn't that be the same *two* spots, presumably with a seek involved? *That* would induce a 50 Hz vibration which could be nasty. But just writing to one sector 50 times a second should be an absolute fiesta of...rotational latency. Doldrum city. Silence and stillness, at least from the head mechanism...
> Thats 129,600,000 writes to the same sector on the disk each month.
Now, 129,600,000 round trips between the end of the log file and the log file inode could cause a bit of wear...
Keith
-- "Well, look at that. The sun's | Linux: http://www.linuxhq.com |"Zooty, coming up." -- John Sheridan, | KDE: http://www.kde.org | zoot "Sleeping in Light", Babylon 5 | Keith: kwrohrer@enteract.com | zoot!" www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html | http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer | --Rebo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |