Sujet : Re: Shutdown - 25 Years Later
De : candycanearter07 (at) *nospam* candycanearter07.nomail.afraid (candycanearter07)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.miscDate : 23. Apr 2025, 20:20:05
Autres entêtes
Organisation : the-candyden-of-code
Message-ID : <slrn100if9f.2i4dj.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
The Natural Philosopher <
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 11:13 this Tuesday (GMT):
On 22/04/2025 10:27, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-04-22 11:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/04/2025 09:35, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-04-21 02:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 08:24:22 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
It sounds like they're talking about the cache in the drive itself,
making sure data is physically written out before power-off.
>
Unfortunately, you could be right.
>
I say “unfortunately“, because I think it’s a dumb idea for drives
to have
their own cache.
>
Not at all. There is a huge speed improvement.
>
The key is to have a large enough capacitor in the drive to flush all
those caches on power off.
Or power off by command, not pulling the cable.
The reason you pull the cable is
>
(i) the electricity company did it for you
(ii) the power off button/command didn't work.
(iii) There was no swap left and you couldn't even log in to issue the
shutdown command
I thought there's an OOM killer built in to prevent running out of ram?
-- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom