Re: Re:What's the longest time before Windows flushes data to disk?

"anton bassov" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a160d49ab9034754ba4cd6ea7da6e997@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Slava

Concerning the "absurdities that I have withdrwawn", the only thing I can
say is that I am able to admit my mistakes - unfortunately, you seem to
lack such ability completely (in fact, this is your problem, rather than
mine).

I have no problem admitting my mistakes. I just do not see that I did any in
this discussion. Your situation is quite, quite different. Not only have you
made mistakes, you have also resorted to personal attack.

Actually, the only reason why I participate in these discussions is
because I want to learn more, so that I am not afraid of mistakes.

I agree that you are not at all afraid of your mistakes. Quite the contrary,
you seem fond of making them, and then going at lengths to defend them.

Apparently, your reason for participation is somehow different.....

My participation in this thread, at this stage, is solely to make sure your
nonsensical insistence that a couple of threads in Windows are guaranteed to
run no matter what will not confuse anyone.

Concerning your statements in Latin, I believe this is just pathetic
show-off - you try to demonstrate your intelligence, but somehow
demonstrate lack of any (exactly like anyone who tries to demonstate
anything when he/she does not really have to). Again, this is your
problem, rather than mine - I just find it amusing.

Argumentum ad hominem, again.

Concerning the faults in logic..... in order to back up your claim, you
have provided description of REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS from
SetPriorityClass()MSDN documentation. However, it really depends on the
conclusions that you make. For example, the only conclusion that I made
from this description is that you should use this feature sparingly and
for the short intervals only, unless you are desperate to screw up the
session. However, your conclusion is somehow different - you presented it
as absolutely normal behaviour.

Red herring, again. I referenced this as a counter example to your
statement. I did not base my conclusions on that.

It is understandable that, under some certain circumstances, neither "lazy
writer" nor Balance Set Manager may run(in fact, it applies to ANY thread,
regardless of its priority).

The fact that you understand this but still stick with your absurd claims
shows that you continue this discussion for a reason quite different than "I
want to learn more".

[...]

Therefore, I want to make it clear that everything I said applies ONLY
UNDER THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!

Congratulations, you have identified one ad hoc assumption in your logic...

However, you are talking about ABNORMAL(!!!) things that should not occur
if all programs that run on the target machine are properly designed, and
present them as something normal - you presented REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS
as one of the reasons why cache may not get flushed for minutes, hours and
days.

.... which, unfortunately, is still spoiled by a bunch of other ad hoc
assumptions, as the passage above indicates.

Whose logic is at fault?????

Yours, this is quite plain.

Concerning the frequency of "lazy writer" invocation, please consult
Windows Internals, page 683, last paragraph

Concerning Balance Set Manager, please consult the same source, page 466
(I have checked my spelling, so that you can go right to these pages).

So you're still unable to provide a quotation. Not entirely unexpected,
given your record. If you somehow manage to provide such a quotation, make
sure it provides substantial evidence that "Russinovich and Solomon
contadict Slava M.Usov's statements" [*].

S

[*] Original spelling.


.

Relevant Pages