RamDisk vs SSD (and SSD in RAID10)

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!
5 answers Last reply
More about ramdisk raid10
  1. Ok... apparently Firefox anyway, essentially already makes some use of RAM for caching anyway... making this (still prevalent) 'tweak' unnecessary, and possibly maladaptive.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Memory RAMDisk SSD Performance