raptor or cache?
- From: ivowel@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Jan 2006 12:07:24 -0800
I want to build a fast linux machine now. Among my choices are whether
to put more money into memory ($70/GB), or more money into a Raptor HD
RAID-0. I believe linux uses a cache write-back scheme, which is good
for me. I do not like the idea of data sitting for hours on an
external hard drive, but data that is written to "when convenient,"
where convenient is a number in the low minutes. Still, I understand
that battery-backed RAM drives on PCI-E cards are on the horizon. I
guess I could set up an automatic rsync.
Now, realistically, almost all my linux operating system fits into 1GB.
All of my user files that I am working on on any given day would fit
into another 1GB. I pretty much know where the these preferred areas
are. Alas, what would be useful in such a situation would be the
ability to designate some files or directory areas as "preferred to
retain in cache", others as "normal cache", and others as "do not
cache". for example, under gentoo, I do not want my 6GB /usr/portage
tree to be cached. and, given the choice between discarding a
preferred and normal buffer, I would like the algorithm to prefer to
dump the normal cache.
Possible?
sincerely,
/iaw
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: raptor or cache?
- From: General Schvantzkoph
- Re: raptor or cache?
- Prev by Date: Re: fan noise fan control
- Next by Date: Re: raptor or cache?
- Previous by thread: dd to backup fat32 drive?
- Next by thread: Re: raptor or cache?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
