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.
-George
|
|
