GPS <georgeps@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Which operating system is best for solid-state drives?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | According to Far, Mac OS X runs "a little faster than Vista" with an SSD
>> | drive, but Linux is "always faster" than Vista or Mac OS X -- to the
>> | tune of 1% to 2% -- because like Windows 2000, "it never runs anything
>> | in the background."
>> `----
>>
>>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=knowledge_center&articleId=9123140&taxonomyId=1&intsrc=kc_top
>
> I think that article is flawed. It seems to have some technical
> inaccuracies.
>
> Wear leveling is a feature of some SSD devices from what I understand, and
> the OS and file system, don't need to support it (and often don't).
>
> I have no idea what this "background" refers to, and the article seems vague
> about that. Linux does writes in the background. The performance of most
> systems wouldn't be very good if every write(2) was synchronous, especially
> with 2 or more apps writing to a device.
>
> The article also points out the issues with fragmentation. The Linux file
> systems try to avoid fragmentation, and that will tend to wear out some
> blocks on an SSD sooner. To avoid fragmentation a file system will often
> move around blocks, and order them sequentially. An SSD does not have the
> physical problem of seeking with a head over a disk that is associated with
> other devices, so the fragmentation matters much less.
>
Doh. Linux has file systems specifically designed for SSDs...
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
