There is one big difference. The ram disk is more persistent.
The problem with the "memory cache" is that a single request can flush all of
it given the right conditions.
Regards
Henrik
On Friday 09 November 2001 16.21, Joe Cooper wrote:
> The ram disk also can't bring things in from the disk dirs to make them
> 'hot' again, which I think is what's really missing from the current
> memory model...so it's doubtful their is any benefit for this reason.
> They both use a replacement policy to decide what gets dropped--and if
> the pool is the same size for each, then the effect should be the same.
> (But if the OS freaks out on a 500+MB process, then obviously the ram
> disk wins.) But I think both have the same flaws as a memory caching
> model. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Received on Fri Nov 09 2001 - 09:31:52 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:37 MST