phoronix benchmarks ext4 vs. btrfs
drago01 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:58:14 UTC 2012
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
> 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.
It will come to a complete crawl which was exactly my point, faster
storage does not really help you in that situation.
More information about the devel