The flash drive I have support 1M cycles so if I treat it as circular buffer and keep writing to it, at my rate, it would last me more than 10 years. So it is not a concern. So if I go ahead with this config, I wonder if it would work out ok. i.e. 1) Can I choose a FIFO replacement policy that ensures writes happen sequentially to the media. 2) Would randomly reading one object that is not in memory result in more than 1 access on the underlying device. Objects I'm talking about would rarely exceed 10KB.
Rob >Flash Drives are bad for systems with a high io-load (Flash Drives have poor write Performance and a limited count of write access). > Get more Ram. You should be able to fit 32GB of ram in any Serversystem for a > reasonable Price. To get a good harddisk IO Performance, get hardware > raidcontroller an stripe a lot of small fast scsi-disks. >Greetings > Christoph On Jan 19, 2008 1:14 PM, Rob Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to run a reverse proxy on a machine with solid state drives. The > hope is to get more queries served by utilizing high random I/O performance > (the drive I have supports about 5K requests per second of average 4KB > objects). > I'll have 16GB of RAM, 128GB of flash, and tons of CPU on the machine. The > entire 128GB of cache will be active in general. > > The question is whether I should run Varnish on this hardware. SSD random > write performance is very poor, and I don't understand how Varnish replaces > objects. LRU won't be friendly to SSD. FIFO would be good enough for my > purpose. Is it possible to configure it that way? > > Also, when using the flash drive as a disk, would I be guaranteed to make > exactly one read on the flash per object I fetch from it (for objects that > don't reside in the memory)? > > Thanks. > Rob > > _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
