Re: PATCH: rewritten bdflush

[Marc Lehmann]

As an example of real world usage: my answering machine (a 486) has
an average disk-spindown-time of 200 minutes with noatime and pavels
bdflush. It does not spin down for longer than 15 minutes without pavels
bdflush.

reaking this possibility really is throwing features away for no reason.
Wether or not this is unsafe or theoretically best is not much of a
concern for many (pavels arguments about usnafeness also make sense to me,
though). However, just removing this feature does not make any sense at
all. If you think it is bad than do it better, don't just get rid of it.

I hope everybody agrees ;)

On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 12:18:08AM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> 
> (and, not completely related: )
> - e2fs should "unmount" (mark clean) the filesystem say 10 minutes
> (configurable) after the last write.
> 
> Why?

Whats wrong with automount? It does exactly that on my machine (combined
with -onocheck).

> It would be nice to be able to spin down those drives after say 10 or
> 60 minutes of no activity. 

Yepp.

--  
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [e-mail]      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |