On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 11:00 +0200, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> As for Flash-SSDs, we've tried 2 * MTRON 6000 32GB RAID 0, 2 * SanDisk
> 5000 32GB RAID 0 and SanDisk something (64GB model) both as single drive
> and 4 drives in RAID 0.
Update:
The "SanDisk something" turned out to be a Samsung MCCOE64
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:33 +0200, Cam Bazz wrote:
[RAM vs. Flash-SSD vs. harddrives]
> I have done similar test with ram vs. disk, and IO was the bottleneck.
> What flash ssd did you try with?
For disks (as in conventional 10.000/15.000 RPM harddrives), IO is
clearly the bottleneck for us also.
> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 17:58 +0200, Cam Bazz wrote:
> > anyone using ramdisks for storage? there is ramsam and there is also
> fusion
> > io. but they are kinda expensive. any other alternatives I wonder?
>
> We've done some comparisons of RAM (Lucene RAM
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 17:58 +0200, Cam Bazz wrote:
> anyone using ramdisks for storage? there is ramsam and there is also fusion
> io. but they are kinda expensive. any other alternatives I wonder?
We've done some comparisons of RAM (Lucene RAMDirectory) vs. Flash-SSD
vs. conventional
hello,
anyone using ramdisks for storage? there is ramsam and there is also fusion
io. but they are kinda expensive. any other alternatives I wonder?
Best.
