1 |
>>>> Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds |
2 |
>>>> like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives |
3 |
>>>> are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need |
4 |
>>>> an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc. |
5 |
>>> I assumed that you're looking at £100 or more for an SSD, as opposed to < |
6 |
>>> £10 for a CF card. I didn't check those prices, however. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Are SSDs really *that* much better than CF cards in terms of write cycles? |
9 |
>>> (i.e. swap) |
10 |
>>> How much swap are you actually using? |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> If the box is just a NAS, then I can't see the speed of the system drive is |
13 |
>>> an issue *at all*. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> They're actually workstations so I don't think I should neglect the |
16 |
>> performance aspect. Should this scheme keep the system running if the |
17 |
>> HD fails? |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> / SSD |
20 |
>> /boot SSD |
21 |
>> /home HD |
22 |
>> swap HD |
23 |
>> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> No. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, you can't put swap on |
26 |
> the HD. It would certainly crash the system when the disk fails. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Better make sure that these systems have that much RAM that they don't |
29 |
> need a swap-partition. Alternatively, buy a decent SSD, not a cheap one, |
30 |
> and swap on that. |
31 |
|
32 |
OK, that's right. How can I find out if 4GB RAM (the current amount) |
33 |
is enough? From what I understand of how Linux handles memory, it |
34 |
will fill it up as quickly as possible, and then free it as necessary. |
35 |
This makes it difficult to determine how much RAM is necessary from |
36 |
watching top. |
37 |
|
38 |
I read on this list that the kernel needs *some* swap, even just a |
39 |
tiny amount, to function properly. Is that true? If so, do you think |
40 |
it would be OK to put this tiny amount of swap on a cheap SSD? |
41 |
|
42 |
- Grant |