RamDisk vs SSD (and SSD in RAID10)

[commissar_mo]

I'm curious about using RamDisk to accelerate web browsing by placing the cache folders in it as many online have talked about.

I suspect though that many of them were using HDDs when they spoke of the performance benefits.

Does anyone know off-hand (or seen benchmarks, I couldn't find any) how a RamDisk would compare against an SSD? I run SSD in RAID10, so I'm also interested in comparing RamDisk vs that.

Intuitively, I feel as if it wouldn't make a large performance difference? I'm not esp. worried about wearing out the SSDs... since I suspect I'll get new hardware long before they start to slowdown... but I know that's one of the impetuses for using RamDisk...

Thanks in advance to any posters!

 

[commissar_mo]

Ok... apparently Firefox anyway, essentially already makes some use of RAM for caching anyway... making this (still prevalent) 'tweak' unnecessary, and possibly maladaptive.

 

[Chainzsaw]

A ramdisk would have approximatel 10x the speed and bandwidth of the SSD (in the 5-6GB range if you have DDR3). However you would need constant power to the Ramdisk - and if you run out of power you will lose everything located on the ramdisk.

TBH SSD's make ramdisk's somewhat pointless.

http://fiehnlab.ucdavis.edu/staff/kind/Collector/Benchmark/RamDisk/

 

[mbryans]

I think people just use a RAM Disk if you want to build a supercomputer, not web browsing. Better if you buy a SSD and install a larger internet bandwidth.

 

[commissar_mo]

Chainzsaw - thanks for the benchmarks! I suppose though I'd have to just test it both ways to see the differences - I have a feeling that, as mbryans is saying, even moving the browser cache to the RAM (compared with an SSD array in RAID10) will have a minimal improvement and will be limited more so by actual ISP provision rather than local caching.

 

[Chainzsaw]

If you want fast web browsing - look into something like FIOS. Basically fiber optics to your home. Currently thats the fastest way to access the internet.