From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luca Berra <bluca@comedia.it>
Subject: Re: disk failure and badblocks
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:19:26 +0100
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20031122151926.GH12265@percy.comedia.it>
References: <1069489341.4351.5.camel@binkley> <20031122141218.GF12265@percy.comedia.it> <1069513055.4351.8.camel@binkley>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1069513055.4351.8.camel@binkley>
To: seth vidal <skvidal@phy.duke.edu>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 09:57:36AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>What if I made the number of blocks written at any time * the block byte
>size greater than the onboard disk cache? That seems like it might
>circumvent the caching problem.
it should.
L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \