Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #2454 > unrolled thread

Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD?

Started by	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
First post	2014-06-28 11:25 -0700
Last post	2014-07-04 17:54 +1000
Articles	20 on this page of 53 — 22 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

  Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-28 11:25 -0700
    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 15:11 -0400
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 11:25 -0800
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 05:38 +1000
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 15:55 -0400
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 12:59 -0800
            Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 18:02 -0400
              Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Larry Blanchard <lblanch@fastmail.fm> - 2014-06-28 23:55 +0000
                Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 17:20 -0800
                  Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2014-06-28 20:26 -0600
                    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 21:17 -0800
              Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 17:11 -0800
                Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 23:39 -0400
                  Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 21:29 -0800
                    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-29 02:21 -0400
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Larry Blanchard <lblanch@fastmail.fm> - 2014-06-28 23:52 +0000
            Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2014-06-28 17:03 -0800
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2014-06-29 15:23 -0400
            Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-29 15:12 -0700
              Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2014-06-29 17:36 -0600
              Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2014-07-01 10:37 +0100
                Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-01 16:14 +0000
                Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-02 23:13 -0700
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2014-07-03 02:13 -0400
    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2014-06-28 22:08 +0000
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 19:42 -0400
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2014-07-01 10:41 +0100
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-07-01 11:31 +0100
    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-06-28 23:31 -0700
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 06:30 +1000
    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2014-06-29 08:39 +0100
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-29 12:01 -0700
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-29 16:53 -0400
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-29 15:13 -0700
            Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-29 21:30 -0400
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) - 2014-07-01 02:54 -0500
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Poutnik <Poutnik@privacy.net> - 2014-07-01 10:39 +0200
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-07-02 09:49 +1000
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2014-07-02 08:18 +0100
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-02 23:16 -0700
    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-29 12:36 -0400
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-29 14:06 -0400
    Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2014-07-03 02:16 -0400
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-02 23:19 -0700
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-03 18:55 +1200
      Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "Charles T. Smith" <cts.private.yahoo@gmail.com> - 2014-07-03 12:46 +0000
        Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-03 14:31 -0400
          Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-07-03 19:57 +0100
            Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "whacker james" <wj852@gmail.com> - 2014-07-04 09:02 +1000
              Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-07-04 00:23 +0100
                Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2014-07-04 00:29 +0100
                  Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-07-04 00:47 +0100
                Re: Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD? "whacker james" <wj852@gmail.com> - 2014-07-04 17:54 +1000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

#2493

From	Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk>
Date	2014-07-01 10:37 +0100
Message-ID	<XcntwLAkFosTFw00@jasper.org.uk>
In reply to	#2484

In article <-q6dncC0xrL4Ei3OnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant
<ant@zimage.comANT> writes

>Also, VirtualBox was exited since yesterday afternoon PDT. Its swap has 
>grown overnight.

Modern OSes will use a little swap if it's available, even if there is
plenty of free memory.  It's normal and nothing to worry about.

Was it really necessary to cross-post to so many groups?

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2496

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2014-07-01 16:14 +0000
Message-ID	<c1g52mF4erhU4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2493

On 2014-07-01, Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <-q6dncC0xrL4Ei3OnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant
><ant@zimage.comANT> writes
>
>>Also, VirtualBox was exited since yesterday afternoon PDT. Its swap has 
>>grown overnight.
>
> Modern OSes will use a little swap if it's available, even if there is
> plenty of free memory.  It's normal and nothing to worry about.
>
> Was it really necessary to cross-post to so many groups?

Ant breaks good netiquette on a fairly constant basis, despite being
told what he does wrong and how to correct it. Good luck!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2500

From	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
Date	2014-07-02 23:13 -0700
Message-ID	<-NCdnYPykOEXaSnOnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2493

On 7/1/2014 2:37 AM PT, Mike Tomlinson typed:

> Was it really necessary to cross-post to so many groups?

I could post in each newsgroup instead. :P
-- 
"It is not enough to be busy, so are the ants. The question is: what are 
we busy about?" --Henry David Thoreau
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2501

From	Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date	2014-07-03 02:13 -0400
Message-ID	<53b4f4a3$1@news.bnb-lp.com>
In reply to	#2458

On 28/06/2014 3:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <874mz496r6.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
> <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
>>>> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
>>>> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
>>>> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
>>>
>>> ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
>>> computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.
>>
>> "Even" with swap?  Swapping is something that should be
>> relatively rare.
>
> nonsense. swapping happens as a matter of course on any desktop/laptop
> system because physical memory is always limited.
>
>> It's there to prevent a major disaster
>> on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory.
>
> odd occasion?? there is never enough physical memory unless you don't
> do much of anything with the computer.
>
>> The
>> oddness of those occasions should result in minisule
>> wear on the swap device.
>
> an ssd can easily handle swap without any issue. there is no need to
> worry about ssd longevity anymore. ssds are *extremely* reliable and
> smoking fast and will almost certainly outlast the computer.
>
>> In effect, it is not sound policy to use an expensive
>> fast device for swap, as the benefit is just exceedingly
>> small.
>
> nonsense.
>
> putting swap on ssd is a *huge* boost to overall system speed. the
> difference is *dramatic*.

You should know that Floyd is going through that pedantic swap vs. 
pagefile argument right now. Whereas the rest of the world has come to 
the understanding that swapfiles mean the same thing as pagefiles, some 
people insist that they are the protectors of precise language.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2461

From	Arno <me@privacy.net>
Date	2014-06-28 22:08 +0000
Message-ID	<c18smnFjg0uU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2454

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a 
> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users 
> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac 
> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?

It depends on your swap-load. With normal swap-load, it should 
not be much of an issue, unless you run the machine for decades. 
However, high swap load can ruin an SSD pretty fast (weeks
to months). 

> Currently, I have a Debian stable box that uses an 115 GB Corsair Force 
> Series F115 SSD since 11/24/2001. It ran almost 24/7. I do have a very 
> old PATA/IDE HDD too, but it is mostly for storage. I'd think it would 
> be too slow for virtual memory (VM) if it was on it. However, my Debian 

All HDDs are "too slow" for virual memory. SSDs are too. Virtual
memory is not there to be "used", it is sort of an attic where 
things can be moved (slowly and painfully) when space gets tight.


> box (2 GB of RAM) doesn't use it much according to top with a VM (512 MB 
> of RAM for an updated Windows XP Pro. SP3):

> $ top - 11:13:23 up 23 days,  4:39,  3 users,  load average: 0.21, 0.11, 
> 0.08
> Tasks: 174 total,   1 running, 172 sleeping,   1 stopped,   0 zombie
> %Cpu(s):  1.1 us,  1.2 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.7 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si, 
>  0.0 st
> KiB Mem:   2060516 total,  1976072 used,    84444 free,   223096 buffers
> KiB Swap:  3905532 total,    99548 used,  3805984 free,   439456 cached

You know, you can run a modern Linux without swap. That may
be better. If you run into a high swap load situation, you
will have problems anyways. 

Arno


>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>  4907 ant       20   0 1477m 655m 593m S   0.3 32.6   9:21.44 VirtualBox
>  3231 ant       20   0  326m 135m 4880 S   0.0  6.7   2:06.69 ruby
>  4631 ant       20   0 2955m 104m  36m S   1.3  5.2  15:42.50 
> plasma-desktop
>  4621 ant       20   0 2689m  73m  28m S   1.3  3.6  20:39.79 kwin
> 10202 ant       20   0  389m  41m  27m S   0.0  2.1   0:05.09 kscreenlocker
>  5290 root      20   0  178m  41m  17m S   1.7  2.0 187:13.77 Xorg
>  4835 ant       20   0  589m  39m  20m S   0.0  1.9   0:10.53 VirtualBox
>  4665 ant       20   0  785m  36m  10m S   0.0  1.8   0:07.64 krunner
>  4683 ant       20   0  531m  26m 8876 S   0.0  1.3   0:00.78 kmix
>  4601 ant       20   0  354m  15m  13m S   0.0  0.8   0:00.38 kdeinit4
>  4628 ant       20   0  619m  14m 6644 S   0.0  0.7   0:01.01 knotify4
>  4604 ant       20   0  703m  14m 8100 S   0.0  0.7   0:06.77 kded4
>  4619 ant       20   0  531m  11m 6188 S   0.0  0.6   0:00.37 ksmserver
>  4708 ant       20   0  283m  10m 6148 S   0.0  0.5   0:00.25 klipper
>  4680 ant       20   0  364m  10m 6012 S   0.0  0.5   0:00.16 
> polkit-kde-auth
> 12819 root      20   0 65312  10m 1732 S   0.0  0.5   1:26.60 python
> ...

> Thank you in advance. :)
> -- 
> "Fall in those single lines like army ants..." --unknown
>    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
>   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
>  | |o   o| |
>     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
>      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
> Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2462

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2014-06-28 19:42 -0400
Message-ID	<280620141942386609%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#2461

In article <c18smnFjg0uU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> However, high swap load can ruin an SSD pretty fast (weeks
> to months). 

it doesn't.

there are a *lot* of systems with ssd that are 5 years old (or more)
and running just fine, with no signs of ssd failure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2494

From	Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk>
Date	2014-07-01 10:41 +0100
Message-ID	<csevsVADJosTFw3N@jasper.org.uk>
In reply to	#2462

In article <280620141942386609%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes

>there are a *lot* of systems with ssd that are 5 years old (or more)
>and running just fine, with no signs of ssd failure.

This is well worth a read.

<http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/consumer-grade-ssds-actually-
last-a-hell-of-a-long-time/>

6 consumer-grade SSDs survived 700TB of writes before the first failures
appeared, and some are still going strong.

-- 
 (\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2495

From	Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not>
Date	2014-07-01 11:31 +0100
Message-ID	<lou2lg$46g$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#2494

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>>there are a *lot* of systems with ssd that are 5 years old (or more)
>>and running just fine, with no signs of ssd failure.
> 
> This is well worth a read.
> 
> <http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/consumer-grade-ssds-actually-
> last-a-hell-of-a-long-time/>
> 
> 6 consumer-grade SSDs survived 700TB of writes before the first failures
> appeared, and some are still going strong.

Those tests are done using sequential writes. Real write loads include a 
random component that causes write amplification and complicates wear 
leveling. I've seen write amplifications between 2 and 4 for recent (one to 
two years old) SSDs. Still, assuming 175TB (700/4) writes before failure is 
still a lot of writes and more than enough for most current users, even with 
a good amount of swap writes included.

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlOyje8ACgkQGQjO2ccW76qQgAD9GdtKm9ECKDEhmgnR0ejFnwbd
1qqT30bXVcUqlVdlXA0A/iwL3PuJXP5I/hQLyqqnkJuCNso4Feoca0+oDUqTcNHm
=k4qf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2473

From	Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us>
Date	2014-06-28 23:31 -0700
Message-ID	<mcmurtrie-20471E.23311628062014@news.sonic.net>
In reply to	#2454

Flash and spinning rust are similar in that they are both analog storage 
that wears out.  Flash wears out from writes.  Spinning rust wears out 
from pulses of pressure when the head flies over.  Wear leveling, the 
digital encoding method, and the amount of hidden spare storage 
determines the tradeoff between capacity and longevity.

Get one designed for continuous writes and you're good for 5-10 years of 
heavy use.  The capacity may not look good but that's the tradeoff.



In article <obKdnU708pAllTLOnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a 
> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users 
> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac 
> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
> 
> Currently, I have a Debian stable box that uses an 115 GB Corsair Force 
> Series F115 SSD since 11/24/2001. It ran almost 24/7. I do have a very 
> old PATA/IDE HDD too, but it is mostly for storage. I'd think it would 
> be too slow for virtual memory (VM) if it was on it. However, my Debian 
> box (2 GB of RAM) doesn't use it much according to top with a VM (512 MB 
> of RAM for an updated Windows XP Pro. SP3):
> 
> $ top - 11:13:23 up 23 days,  4:39,  3 users,  load average: 0.21, 0.11, 
> 0.08
> Tasks: 174 total,   1 running, 172 sleeping,   1 stopped,   0 zombie
> %Cpu(s):  1.1 us,  1.2 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.7 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si, 
>   0.0 st
> KiB Mem:   2060516 total,  1976072 used,    84444 free,   223096 buffers
> KiB Swap:  3905532 total,    99548 used,  3805984 free,   439456 cached
> 
>    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>   4907 ant       20   0 1477m 655m 593m S   0.3 32.6   9:21.44 VirtualBox
>   3231 ant       20   0  326m 135m 4880 S   0.0  6.7   2:06.69 ruby
>   4631 ant       20   0 2955m 104m  36m S   1.3  5.2  15:42.50 
> plasma-desktop
>   4621 ant       20   0 2689m  73m  28m S   1.3  3.6  20:39.79 kwin
> 10202 ant       20   0  389m  41m  27m S   0.0  2.1   0:05.09 kscreenlocker
>   5290 root      20   0  178m  41m  17m S   1.7  2.0 187:13.77 Xorg
>   4835 ant       20   0  589m  39m  20m S   0.0  1.9   0:10.53 VirtualBox
>   4665 ant       20   0  785m  36m  10m S   0.0  1.8   0:07.64 krunner
>   4683 ant       20   0  531m  26m 8876 S   0.0  1.3   0:00.78 kmix
>   4601 ant       20   0  354m  15m  13m S   0.0  0.8   0:00.38 kdeinit4
>   4628 ant       20   0  619m  14m 6644 S   0.0  0.7   0:01.01 knotify4
>   4604 ant       20   0  703m  14m 8100 S   0.0  0.7   0:06.77 kded4
>   4619 ant       20   0  531m  11m 6188 S   0.0  0.6   0:00.37 ksmserver
>   4708 ant       20   0  283m  10m 6148 S   0.0  0.5   0:00.25 klipper
>   4680 ant       20   0  364m  10m 6012 S   0.0  0.5   0:00.16 
> polkit-kde-auth
> 12819 root      20   0 65312  10m 1732 S   0.0  0.5   1:26.60 python
> ...
> 
> Thank you in advance. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2482

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-06-30 06:30 +1000
Message-ID	<c1bbdkF4qsaU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2473

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote

> Flash and spinning rust are similar in that
> they are both analog storage that wears out.

Not in a practical sense with spinning rust.

> Flash wears out from writes.  Spinning rust wears out
> from pulses of pressure when the head flies over.

Not normally the reason they are no longer used.

> Wear leveling, the digital encoding method, and the amount of hidden
> spare storage determines the tradeoff between capacity and longevity.

> Get one designed for continuous writes and you're good for 5-10 years
> of heavy use.  The capacity may not look good but that's the tradeoff.


> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote

>> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
>> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
>> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
>> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
>>
>> Currently, I have a Debian stable box that uses an 115 GB Corsair Force
>> Series F115 SSD since 11/24/2001. It ran almost 24/7. I do have a very
>> old PATA/IDE HDD too, but it is mostly for storage. I'd think it would
>> be too slow for virtual memory (VM) if it was on it. However, my Debian
>> box (2 GB of RAM) doesn't use it much according to top with a VM (512 MB
>> of RAM for an updated Windows XP Pro. SP3):
>>
>> $ top - 11:13:23 up 23 days,  4:39,  3 users,  load average: 0.21, 0.11,
>> 0.08
>> Tasks: 174 total,   1 running, 172 sleeping,   1 stopped,   0 zombie
>> %Cpu(s):  1.1 us,  1.2 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.7 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,
>>   0.0 st
>> KiB Mem:   2060516 total,  1976072 used,    84444 free,   223096 buffers
>> KiB Swap:  3905532 total,    99548 used,  3805984 free,   439456 cached
>>
>>    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>>   4907 ant       20   0 1477m 655m 593m S   0.3 32.6   9:21.44 VirtualBox
>>   3231 ant       20   0  326m 135m 4880 S   0.0  6.7   2:06.69 ruby
>>   4631 ant       20   0 2955m 104m  36m S   1.3  5.2  15:42.50
>> plasma-desktop
>>   4621 ant       20   0 2689m  73m  28m S   1.3  3.6  20:39.79 kwin
>> 10202 ant       20   0  389m  41m  27m S   0.0  2.1   0:05.09 
>> kscreenlocker
>>   5290 root      20   0  178m  41m  17m S   1.7  2.0 187:13.77 Xorg
>>   4835 ant       20   0  589m  39m  20m S   0.0  1.9   0:10.53 VirtualBox
>>   4665 ant       20   0  785m  36m  10m S   0.0  1.8   0:07.64 krunner
>>   4683 ant       20   0  531m  26m 8876 S   0.0  1.3   0:00.78 kmix
>>   4601 ant       20   0  354m  15m  13m S   0.0  0.8   0:00.38 kdeinit4
>>   4628 ant       20   0  619m  14m 6644 S   0.0  0.7   0:01.01 knotify4
>>   4604 ant       20   0  703m  14m 8100 S   0.0  0.7   0:06.77 kded4
>>   4619 ant       20   0  531m  11m 6188 S   0.0  0.6   0:00.37 ksmserver
>>   4708 ant       20   0  283m  10m 6148 S   0.0  0.5   0:00.25 klipper
>>   4680 ant       20   0  364m  10m 6012 S   0.0  0.5   0:00.16
>> polkit-kde-auth
>> 12819 root      20   0 65312  10m 1732 S   0.0  0.5   1:26.60 python

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2474

From	Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch>
Date	2014-06-29 08:39 +0100
Message-ID	<andreas-F5731E.08392929062014@news.individual.de>
In reply to	#2454

Salut Ant

In article <obKdnU708pAllTLOnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a 
> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users 
> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac 
> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?

an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

What is your problem? 

Cheers
Andreas

-- 
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch> 
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2480

From	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
Date	2014-06-29 12:01 -0700
Message-ID	<1PidnUJcwv8K_y3OnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2474

On 6/29/2014 12:39 AM PT, Andreas Rutishauser typed:

>> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
>> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
>> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
>> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
>
> an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
>
> What is your problem?

I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out 
fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop 
and private server PC.
-- 
"They are like the ant... They start one way and turn around and go the 
other way... They look all the time at the ground and never see the 
sky." --Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, Amazonian Indian (Newsweek 117(17):5, 1991)
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2483

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2014-06-29 16:53 -0400
Message-ID	<290620141653045498%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#2480

In article <1PidnUJcwv8K_y3OnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant
<ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> >> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
> >> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
> >> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
> >> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
> >
> > an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
> >
> > What is your problem?
> 
> I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out 
> fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop 
> and private server PC.

you read wrong.

get the ssd and enjoy the speed boost.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2485

From	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
Date	2014-06-29 15:13 -0700
Message-ID	<-q6dncO0xrI8Ei3OnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2483

On 6/29/2014 1:53 PM PT, nospam typed:

>>>> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
>>>> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
>>>> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
>>>> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
>>>
>>> an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
>>>
>>> What is your problem?
>>
>> I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out
>> fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop
>> and private server PC.
>
> you read wrong.
>
> get the ssd and enjoy the speed boost.

I already have a SSD. Just curious. :) Yes, it's nice. I hope it lasts a 
while. I wished they were cheaper and bigger like old fashion HDDs. ;)
-- 
"Don't stop to stomp ants when the elephants are stampeding." --unknown
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
A song (i/wa)s playing on this computer: Brooklynn - Mile High

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2487

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2014-06-29 21:30 -0400
Message-ID	<290620142130535583%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#2485

In article <-q6dncO0xrI8Ei3OnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant
<ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> >>>> Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
> >>>> slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
> >>>> with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
> >>>> OS X, and Linux follow this rule?
> >>>
> >>> an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
> >>>
> >>> What is your problem?
> >>
> >> I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out
> >> fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop
> >> and private server PC.
> >
> > you read wrong.
> >
> > get the ssd and enjoy the speed boost.
> 
> I already have a SSD. Just curious. :) Yes, it's nice. I hope it lasts a 
> while. I wished they were cheaper and bigger like old fashion HDDs. ;)

it's a tradeoff. if you want speed, get ssd. if you want large
capacities, get a hard drive. a good compromise is a combination of
both, such as a fusion drive.

there is no perfect solution for everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2491

From	hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray)
Date	2014-07-01 02:54 -0500
Message-ID	<os6dnczR7NWl9C_OnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@megapath.net>
In reply to	#2474

In article <andreas-F5731E.08392929062014@news.individual.de>,
 Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> writes:

>an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

Where did those numbers come from?

Don't forget the write amplification mess.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification

I'm primarily interested in logging short lines of text.
If you flush the file after each write, that turns 50 or 100 bytes
into a pair of 4K pages.  But 60 GB is a lot on that scale.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2492

From	Poutnik <Poutnik@privacy.net>
Date	2014-07-01 10:39 +0200
Message-ID	<lots3j$piv$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#2491

On 07/01/2014 09:54 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
> In article <andreas-F5731E.08392929062014@news.individual.de>,
>   Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> writes:
>
>> an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
>
> Where did those numbers come from?

Perhaps mechanically dividing of
typical 10000 write cycles of multilevel cells in 60 GB SSD
with per 365 days of year.
>
> Don't forget the write amplification mess.
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification
>
> I'm primarily interested in logging short lines of text.
> If you flush the file after each write, that turns 50 or 100 bytes
> into a pair of 4K pages.  But 60 GB is a lot on that scale.
>


-- 
Poutnik

A wise man guards words he says,
as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2497

From	"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date	2014-07-02 09:49 +1000
Message-ID	<c1gvp6Facc5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#2491

Hal Murray <hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote 
> Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> wrote
 
>> an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
 
> Where did those numbers come from?

Straight from someone's arse, you can tell from the smell. 
 
> Don't forget the write amplification mess.
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification
 
> I'm primarily interested in logging short lines of text.
> If you flush the file after each write, that turns 50 or 100 bytes
> into a pair of 4K pages.  But 60 GB is a lot on that scale.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2498

From	Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch>
Date	2014-07-02 08:18 +0100
Message-ID	<andreas-AD3AC1.08184602072014@news.individual.de>
In reply to	#2491

Salut Hal

In article <os6dnczR7NWl9C_OnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@megapath.net>,
 hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:

> In article <andreas-F5731E.08392929062014@news.individual.de>,
>  Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> writes:
> 
> >an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).
> 
> Where did those numbers come from?

from a webinar by Kroll Ontrack I attended on June 24th.
<http://www.krollontrack.com/>

Cheers
Andreas

-- 
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch> 
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2503

From	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
Date	2014-07-02 23:16 -0700
Message-ID	<-NCdnYLykOG2aCnOnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
In reply to	#2498

On 7/2/2014 12:18 AM PT, Andreas Rutishauser typed:

> from a webinar by Kroll Ontrack I attended on June 24th.
> <http://www.krollontrack.com/>

Is there a recording? I didn't see it on its web site.
-- 
"Why eat ants when an uncle will do?" --Tymoutta Aardvarka of Sarcastica
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD?

Contents

#2493

#2496

#2500

#2501

#2461

#2462

#2494

#2495

#2473

#2482

#2474

#2480

#2483

#2485

#2487

#2491

#2492

#2497

#2498

#2503