Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think others have said this, but I think you're behind the times when you talk about a "ramdisk". We're not running DOS here. Linux will already cache as much as it can in memory, and in a sensible and automatic way.
But realistically speaking, this is not a bottleneck worth trying to solve. When it's working, the db server is very fast, and already holds everything that it needs in memory, as far as I know.
I understood the server was I/O bound from a recent posting. Server maxed out with low CPU utilisation. The information you and I have differs. You are in a position to have better information on this than I. I certainly don't want to waste time solving a non-existent problem.
Do we have a bottleneck? If so, where is it and how do we know?