On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:31 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >>> Yes, such a feature was submitted[1], but it has never been committed by >>> Chris AFAIK. There is also a OS-agnostic method of this. Seagate XT drives >>> use a small SSD as a cache. Then there is also a Windows method with >>> Intel's SSD Cache using a dedicated SSD as only a cache. Either way gives >>> you a similar result. >> >> I think I'd rather see a portion of the SSD be a discrete device so that the >> system and application scratch/swap can be pointed to it - > > Swap? Really? That is a waste of (expensive) disk space. There is no > point on having swap on SSD if you have another disk around. You > wouldn't notice any speed difference if your system starts swapping > you are in serious trouble (i.e everything crawls) the best fix here > is to just buy RAM which is *very* cheap now days. You're probably right that system swapping is a situation to be avoided. But I can imagine runaway situations that might be more easily recovered from with swap on SSD, just because everything won't come to a complete crawl. As for application scratch, absolutely SSD should be an option when working on very large files. While not a default or routine dependency, one shouldn't have to suffer with HDD scratch when SSD scratch could be available. A typical pro laptop will max out at 16GB of RAM, and heavy duty Photoshop users can occasionally and not unreasonable bust that limit and need scratch. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
