filesystems - Safety of write cache on SATA drives with barriers

I've been reading lately about write caching, NCQ,
firmware bugs, barriers, etc regarding SATA drives, and I'm not sure what's the best
setting that would make my data safe in case of a power
failure.

From what I understand, NCQ allows the
drive to reorder the writes to optimize performance, while keeping the kernel informed
on which requests have been physically
written.

Write cache makes the drive serve a
request much faster, because it doesn't wait for the data to be written to physical
disk.

I'm not sure how NCQ and Write
cache mix here...

Filesystems, specially
journalled ones, need to be sure when a particular request has been written down. Also,
user space process use fsync() to force the flush of a particular file. That call to
fsync() shouldn't return until the filesystem is sure that the data is written to
disk.

There's a feature (FUA, Force Unit
Access), which I've seen only on SAS drives, which forces the drive to bypass cache and
write directly to disk. For everything else, there's write barriers, which is a
mechanism provided by the kernel that can trigger a cache flush on the drive. This
forces all the cache to be written down, not just the critical
data, thus slowing the whole system if abused, with fsync() for
example.

An then there are drives with firmware
bugs, or that deliberately lie about when data has been physically
written.

Having said this.. there are several
ways to setup the drives/filesystems:

A) NCQ and Write cache
disabled
B) Just NCQ enabled
C) Just Write cache
enabled
D) Both NCQ and write cache
enabled

I'm asuming barriers are enabled.. BTW,
how to check if they are actually enabled?

In
case of power loss, while actively writing to the disk, my guess is that option B (NCQ,
no cache) is safe, both for filesystem journal and data. There may be a performance
penalty.

Option D (NCQ+cache), if using barriers
or FUA, would be safe for the filesystem journal and applications that use fsync(). It
would be bad for the data that was waiting in the cache, and it's up to the filesystem
to detect it (checksuming), and at least the filesystem won't be (hopefully) in an
unstable state. Performance-wise, it should be
better.

My question, however,
stands... Am I missing anything? Is there any other variable to take into account? Is
there any tool that could confirm this, and that my drives behave as they
should?