Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.039 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.92; '*S*': 0.00; 'sufficient': 0.05; 'subject:file': 0.07; 'default.': 0.09; 'indeed,': 0.09; 'parking': 0.09; "system's": 0.09; '-tkc': 0.16; 'cached': 0.16; 'flush': 0.16; 'from:addr:python.list': 0.16; 'from:addr:tim.thechases.com': 0.16; 'from:name:tim chase': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'certainly': 0.24; 'specify': 0.24; 'references': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'subject:/': 0.26; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'dos': 0.30; 'especially': 0.30; '(possibly': 0.31; 'purely': 0.31; 'option': 0.32; 'linux': 0.33; 'something': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'doubt': 0.36; 'much.': 0.36; 'park': 0.36; 'skip:> 10': 0.36; 'done': 0.36; "didn't": 0.36; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'being': 0.38; 'machines': 0.38; 'writes': 0.38; 'needed': 0.38; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'skip:u 10': 0.60; 'preparation': 0.60; 'hardware': 0.61; 'complete': 0.62; 'such': 0.63; 'subject:more': 0.64; '2000': 0.65; 'power': 0.76; 'add-on': 0.84; 'capability': 0.84; 'cuts': 0.84; 'received:50.22': 0.84; 'subject:read': 0.84 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:06:34 -0600 From: Tim Chase To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Is it more CPU-efficient to read/write config file or read/write sqlite database? In-Reply-To: References: <20131218103148.GA2728@cskk.homeip.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - boston.accountservergroup.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - python.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tim.thechases.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: boston.accountservergroup.com: authenticated_id: tim@thechases.com X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1387418726 news.xs4all.nl 2906 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:37187 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:62357 On 2013-12-18 15:14, dick wrote: >>However, my understanding is that they have a small on-drive >>battery/capacitor that stores sufficient energy for the cached >>write(s) to complete in the event the system's power abruptly cuts >>off. >> >>Granted, this is purely hearsay, as it's been a long time since I >>mucked around with hardware much. >> > The drives may have something like that now, but they didn't have > any power down flush capability when I was working for WD. Of > course, that was 15 years ago... Indeed, I certainly remember launching park.exe on my DOS & Win95 machines to flush write-caches and park the heads in preparation of power-down. I recall being told by multiple hardware professionals since 2000 that such wasn't needed any more. I don't have reason to doubt them, especially as I no longer see references to parking heads in any OS or add-on utility. At least on linux (possibly the BSDs too), one can specify that particular mounts are done with the "sync" option to force all writes to make it to the metal/EEPROM before returning, though I don't think this is the default. -tkc