scott.marlowe wrote:
> Oh, spreading misinformation isn't lying? You live in a different
> world than I do.
Again, I apologise if you took my comment so strongly. I can understand when
something that someone works on so hard is critisised. OTOH however, your
original post that I replied to, was very presumptive and over generalised.
If you say 100% of all IDE drives with write caches from 100% of
manufacturers are broken, then I simply do not believe you.
>> From www.dictionary.com:
>
> misinformation
>
> \Mis*in`for*ma"tion\, n. Untrue or incorrect information. --Bacon.
>
> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
> Inc.
Given the recent political issues over a certain military action, my use of
the word "misinformation" used the wider accepted definition including
"missing" information. Your reply below corrected that to some extent, but I
still have questions.
> Last year, I and several others on the pgsql lists ran a series of
> tests to determine which drive subsystems could survive power off
> tests. We ran the tests by initiating dozens or hundreds of
> simultaneous transactions against a postgresql machine, then pulling
> the plug in the middle.
Thanks for that and the subsequent detail. What is still missing for me is
the simple question; "What OSes were tested ?" and more specifically was the
OS driver code compared for the SCSI and IDE subsystems ? It is highly
possible and probable that underlying OS drivers for IDE and SCSI were
written by different people and different attention to following standards
documentation.
Is any of this writtent up anywhere with more details ?It would make very
interesting reading.
rgds,
--
Peter