> With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
> I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound. How much disk will be
> sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
It's not so much a matter of disk size (I don't think you'll have a 1 gig
queue!), but of throughput. For example, a single IDE drive will get you a
couple of megabytes of throughput per second, at a very high CPU cost. SCSI
will yield more, with a lower CPU utilization, and with RAID arrays, you can
move up to hundreds of megabytes per second if you want to.
> I'm just grasping here to figure out the best solution, so bear with me...
> What if I only needed a 1GB queue, and what if that queue was a 1GB
ramdisk
> (I can put 2GB of ram in the box)? Linux has support for making a disk in
> memory, putting a filesystem on it and mounting it. Wouldn't this take
care
> of I/O problems?
That's about as good of I/O as you can get, I would imagine. ; ) As
another author stated, the largest gain would be in writes, but that's where
the largest expenditure is anyway. Just make dang, dang sure that your
machine is NOT going to have any hiccups or lose power while the queue is
full, or you'll instantly lose it all.
steve
