On 4/28/06, Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 28, 2006 09:07 +0200, PFC wrote:
> While I like the idea, the iram implementation is horrible for
> various reasons :
>
> - no ECC
I don't know why people are so keen on ECC RAM. Why not just put an extra
socket on
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:20:02 -0600
Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know why people are so keen on ECC RAM. Why not just put an
> extra socket on the board and run the RAM in "RAIM" (RAID for Memory)
> mode? The incremental cost of ECC vs. regular RAM is FAR more than
> the cos
On Apr 28, 2006 09:07 +0200, PFC wrote:
> While I like the idea, the iram implementation is horrible for
> various reasons :
>
> - no ECC
I don't know why people are so keen on ECC RAM. Why not just put an extra
socket on the board and run the RAM in "RAIM" (RAID for Memory)
While I like the idea, the iram implementation is horrible for various
reasons :
- no ECC
- It uses SATA hence only a very little part of the RAM speed is used,
and large latencies are introduced.
- I wouldn't trust it for critical data.
Then, it would be faster to just
On 4/27/06, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure ECC would be nice, but how does this differ from disk? Silent
> failures are certainly possible.
>
> The fact that error detection and propagation doesn't really happen
> in modern disk subsystems is why systems like Sun's ZFS are coming
> in
On 27-Apr-06, at 10:28 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 4/27/06, Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a simple solid state disk to play with here.
See http://nerv.eu.org/iram/
Interesting review, thanks.
To get better reliability you could raid1 them.
I guess this is a 'must' anyway when u
On 4/27/06, Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a simple solid state disk to play with here.
> > See http://nerv.eu.org/iram/
>
> Interesting review, thanks.
>
> To get better reliability you could raid1 them.
> I guess this is a 'must' anyway when used in servers (just like with
> harddis
o, yes. thx.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480&p=10
see this review, when copy a large iso file, the speed is still around
~100MB/s. and this review also use a ASUS A8N motherboard.
so none of these tests can 100% reflect the real performance. we need a
nice SATA controller a
Ming Zhang wrote (ao):
> read u review. one thing i am not quite understand is the
>
> "Numbers speak from themselves. It's interesting to note that all
> filesystems top the write speed at ~106MB/s and read speed at
> ~125MB/s. It seem we're hitting 32bit PCI throughput limit here ."
>
> since
Jure Pe??ar wrote (ao):
> I have a simple solid state disk to play with here.
> See http://nerv.eu.org/iram/
Interesting review, thanks.
To get better reliability you could raid1 them.
I guess this is a 'must' anyway when used in servers (just like with
harddisks).
Have to try this product myse
read u review. one thing i am not quite understand is the
"Numbers speak from themselves. It's interesting to note that all
filesystems top the write speed at ~106MB/s and read speed at ~125MB/s.
It seem we're hitting 32bit PCI throughput limit here ."
since u said the iram use pci slot for power
Hi all,
I have a simple solid state disk to play with here.
See http://nerv.eu.org/iram/
Reiserfs is known to have good performance with small files. I am a big fan of
it and am using it in production, however the numbers I got here got me
thinking. fsstone is basically a create-rename-delete
12 matches
Mail list logo
