> No, that's like saying you need a completely different set of algorithms because you changed the overall speed of your computer components up or down.
yes? Why are you presenting that as a ridiculous scenario?
The way you optimize an algorithm is going to be completely different when you can assume the HDD is as fast to access as RAM. It would also completely change the way OS's do paging.
The post you're responding to isn't saying it's impossible to get work done, they're saying it's an opportunity to optimize, which it is. And since a FS has such a dramatic effect on the performance of a system (one of the biggest draws of SSD is it's speed), the idea of designing one with SSD in mind specifically isn't that outlandish.
Now whether or not what we have is "good enough" is a different discussion, but you presenting that as something that should be ridiculed is just short sighted and ignorant.
yes? Why are you presenting that as a ridiculous scenario?
The way you optimize an algorithm is going to be completely different when you can assume the HDD is as fast to access as RAM. It would also completely change the way OS's do paging.
The post you're responding to isn't saying it's impossible to get work done, they're saying it's an opportunity to optimize, which it is. And since a FS has such a dramatic effect on the performance of a system (one of the biggest draws of SSD is it's speed), the idea of designing one with SSD in mind specifically isn't that outlandish.
Now whether or not what we have is "good enough" is a different discussion, but you presenting that as something that should be ridiculed is just short sighted and ignorant.