Writing may be faster to RamDisk, but what about actually saving your data.
At least, if writing to disk, you have a realistic expectation that the data
will survive a reboot. For whatever reason the reboot occurs, software bug,
Linux bug, hardware problem, accidentially powering off, etc.
Though I suppose you could schedule interim copies of the ramdisk to hard
disk. But it sounds like a disk cache then, where the responsibility has
been moved to the programmer from the OS.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexander Skwar
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 5:14 PM
To: Ron Johnson
Cc: Adrian; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Ramdisk
So sprach �Ron Johnson� am 2001-07-22 um 16:57:12 -0500 :
> Therefore, bottom line: any parts of your database that you use
> will be brought into the OS's RAM cache, and RAM in a cache or
> RAM in a RAM disk is still RAM, so no need for RAM disk.
Almost true - except: Writing to RAM will always be *WAY* faster than
writing to a hard disk. And if there's more than enough RAM, reading
from a RAM Disk is actually not such a bad idea at all, even given the
fact that inodes are cached in RAM. BUT: What happens if you want to
read from an uncached inode? Exactly - you gotta read from the disk,
which will ALWAYS be a *LOT* slower than reading from RAM.
