On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/5/2011 1:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikesell<lesmikesell at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM > >> anyway - which is pretty cheap these days. > >> > > > > > > Yes, but I suppose it all depends on the needs of the server in question > :) > > > > In our case, with web servers, reads (i.e. opening websites, > > downloading content) far outweighs writes (which are basically logs, > > file uploads, and sessions being written to disk. > > > > In case of forums (we have many clients with forums) reads& writes > > are sometimes equal, but even then reads are still more common in our > > case than writes. > > But it doesn't matter if you lose the read cache in RAM - and the OS is > going to keep a copy there as long as it can anyway. The point of SSD > caching of journals/writes is that it survives a reboot. If you have a > lot more SSD than spare RAM it might save a few seeks as a side effect > but why not just add RAM if that matters? > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell at gmail.com > > > It's not always easy, or even possible to add more RAM, especially since the storage servers weren't fitted with motherboards that can take more than say 8 or 16GB RAM . -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110705/d7dce8dc/attachment-0004.html>