| 1 |
i don't have any official numbers, as i don't run any of the master mirrors, and never bothered to |
| 2 |
test it out. i manage 2 here in canada though, and friend manages a 3rd, all 3 are running from |
| 3 |
ramdisk, you're welcome to try them out for yourself if you wish. rsync4, rsync5, & |
| 4 |
rsync9.ca.gentoo.org. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
i noticed an instant jump in the speed when i moved my mirror from u160 scsi to ramdisk, it does |
| 7 |
make sense if you think about it. you're serving roughly 100k tiny files to a bunch of people all at |
| 8 |
once. that's a lot of seek time on any hard disk. i also sync the ramdisk every 30 mins directly to |
| 9 |
ram. basically, it's a lot less disk thrashing. ;) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
rob |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 14 |
> maillog: 01/12/2004-16:30:40(-0700): Rob Baxter types |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>>i think the point is that the data that gets cached can and does change |
| 17 |
>>every 30 minutes, so caching doesn't really help. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It does help. If data changes, it is first updated in the cache. New |
| 21 |
> data is served directly out of the cache, while the hard disk is synced |
| 22 |
> in the background. That's unless I am majorly mistaken about how caching |
| 23 |
> works. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>>all 5 servers in the rsync.gentoo.org rotation are currently running |
| 27 |
>>rsync out of ram. i think i can safely say they wouldn't be nearly as |
| 28 |
>>fast as they are, running off a hard disk. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Do you have some real numbers? I am not trying to doubt you too much. I |
| 32 |
> am genuinely curious how big the speedup is and if it is worth the |
| 33 |
> effort. All I wanted to point in my post is that the speedup is probably |
| 34 |
> not that great, but I'd really like to see benchmark numbers if someone |
| 35 |
> went to the trouble of doing it. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>>besides, ram is cheap |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> That's pretty relative. $70 for 512MB is not cheap for me. One reason |
| 42 |
> why my poor "server" is still running with 2x512MB *PC133*. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
>>and has a small footprint (smaller blocks) using |
| 46 |
>>ramdrive, why not use it. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Well, you may be right. I guess I could try serving two trees and do |
| 50 |
> some tests myself. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
gentoo-mirrors@g.o mailing list |
Archives