Sure, I just happened across some at
http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.asp?FilteredGroup=HSO
but can't claim any experience with any of the hardware.
Have fun!
> Cory,
>
> > I saw them for $2K for 2 GB which is 3-4x the cost of the memory. I'm
not
> > sure how the performance would com
Cory,
> I saw them for $2K for 2 GB which is 3-4x the cost of the memory. I'm not
> sure how the performance would compare versus the virtual
> approach like you
> say--it is a little hard to believe it would justify the cost
> just on that.
I have hunted all over for an actual RAM based drive in
> > If that's not the problem and you just really have an incredibly
> > disk-intensive application, you might consider a solid state disk if
it's
> > really that important. You can buy them with IDE or SCSI
> > interface, so they
> > look and act like regular hard drives.
>
> This is a very good i
> If that's not the problem and you just really have an incredibly
> disk-intensive application, you might consider a solid state disk if it's
> really that important. You can buy them with IDE or SCSI
> interface, so they
> look and act like regular hard drives.
This is a very good idea except fo
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 08:45:29PM -0400, Cory Snavely wrote:
> > Does Linux support any RAM drive(s)? How much faster are these
> > drives over an attached drive? Is there a CPU performance penalty?
Yes RAM disk support (CONFIG_RAMFS)
> > We would like to replace our mechanical drive with a smal
You mention heavy activity and drive fatigue--is your system thrashing?
Maybe it doesn't have enough physical memory to begin with.
If that's not the problem and you just really have an incredibly
disk-intensive application, you might consider a solid state disk if it's
really that important. You
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:42:23PM -0400, dman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:49:01PM -0400, Paul McHale wrote:
> |
> | Does Linux support any RAM drive(s)? How much faster are these drives over
> | an attached drive? Is there a CPU performance penalty?
>
> According to the kernel FAQ, Lin
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:49:01PM -0400, Paul McHale wrote:
|
| Does Linux support any RAM drive(s)? How much faster are these drives over
| an attached drive? Is there a CPU performance penalty?
According to the kernel FAQ, Linux ext2 implementation is fast enough
that it is not necessary to
"Paul McHale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> Is it true the x86 architecture is limited to 32 bit addressing and will
> never support more than 4GB of address space? Trying to see what the
> limitation will be.
Here's the real lowdown, from the kernel-configuration help for item
"Processor
"Paul McHale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does Linux support any RAM drive(s)? How much faster are these drives over
> an attached drive? Is there a CPU performance penalty?
>
> We would like to replace our mechanical drive with a small (<4GB) RAM drive.
> The mechanical drive is getting pound
10 matches
Mail list logo
