Liz Burke-Scovill wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Andy Zbikowski wrote: > > > Depending on what it is you're doing, you may want to look at the Linux > > Terminal Server Project. (www.ltsp.org, lstp.sourceforge.net) Diskless thin > > client goodness... > > > > How are you thinking of using RAM disks? > > See my previous post on Domino and RAM disks - at least in the Windows > platform, Domino works best if you have the OS & Domino on one spindle, > the databases on another spindle, and transactional logging for domino on > a third spindle...but because logging is reading and writing to a physical > disk (which isn't as fast as RAM) it creates a bottle next - and then if > you're in a small server environment where you have transactional logging > and db's on the same drive, it actually decreases performance because you > then have a double bottleneck. None of this matters if all drives are fed by the same controller. That's the bottle neck. For best performance you need to separate all three subsystems onto separate drives with separate controllers. > The theory on Windows is that if you have > transactional logging on ramdisk, then you save a read/write to the drive > and greatly increase performance... So if the machine goes down, you lose all your data? Doesn't that defeat the purpose logging? > > What I want to find out is if ramdisk is even worth pursuing in > linux because of the way linux uses resources. We know that in general you > have better performance for the same hardware using linux than > windows...when I have the resources to test it (ie., a box big enough to > handle the multiple spindles) I want to check the muliple spindle thing > and see if it's worth pursuing that in linux as well. > > Liz Paul Rech