Although it might be a worthy endeavor, but I see significant risks. At
what cost are file writes to be propagated into the RAM disks? Considering
that reading from a hard drive takes about 50% less time than writing, to
me, it makes more sense (IMHO) to write to the RAM drive and read from the
disk. However, the increased overhead of synching between the ram drive and
hard drive seems likely to destroy any benefits to having the file in RAM.
Perhaps have all read/write activity go to the file in the ram drive then
(via a cron job) update the file locally for backup purposes hourly.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill [mailto:selinuxathome@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:15 AM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Ok here we have it now,,
On Monday 25 February 2002 13:04, you wrote:
> If I put in a ram disk to handle the reads on my files, and I mark it as
> read only, can I then direct all the writes on that same file to the hard
> drive?
Mike, I stumbled upon this a few minutes ago. I don't know that it answers
your question but it looks like a good place to start.
Bill
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue44/nielsen.html
(Sorry for the time warp ... somehow this ended up in the trash folder!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:44:39 EDT