phoronix benchmarks ext4 vs. btrfs
lists at colorremedies.com
Wed Mar 7 22:53:57 UTC 2012
On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:31 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>> Yes, such a feature was submitted, 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.
More information about the devel