<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 19:01, criggie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:criggie@criggie.org.nz">criggie@criggie.org.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My sql database is 335 MB, so it might be feasible to make a raid1 with<br>
a partition and a ramdisk. In theory the writes complete when one disk<br>
is written, so that would be the ramdrive. And the data on the hard<br>
drive would provide the permanent storage over a restart.<br></blockquote><div><br>With RAID1 a write does not complete until all copies have been written. So write performance is approximately equal to the slowest disk in the array. The setup you're describing would act more like a cache except typically RAID implementations are not designed with radically different performance of component drives in mind so you might not get the read speeds you're expecting either as at best reads would probably be split evenly between the ramdrive and the physical disk.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br></div></div>