Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #5549 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

Contents

  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? 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? "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 →

#5577

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]

#5578

-----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]

#5562

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]

#5568

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]

#5563

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]

#5566

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]

#5569

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]

#5571

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]

#5573

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]

#5574

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]

#5575

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]

#5580

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]

#5581

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]

#5585

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]

#5564

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014, Ant 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?
>
My Acer Aspire One netbook came before they moved to a mechanical hard 
drive; it simply doesn't use swap.

Swap was necessary in the old days when you had 8megs of RAM and needed 
more to run KDE.  But the more memory, the less need for swap.  I just 
realized last week I turned off swap by accident, I haven't noticed any 
problem as a result, but then I have 2gigs of RAM. So many people now have 
more, that swap becomes less and less important.  If you find swap is 
being used a lot, then it's time to consider more RAM, rather than how to 
handle swap.

Anything that does a lot of writes to the disk is something to watch if 
you've got a solid state drive.  Deal with setting things up so you aren't 
doing that constant write, and the solid state drive will be fine.

    Michael

> 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. :)
> -- 
> "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]

#5565

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1406291232430.6254@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> 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?
> >
> My Acer Aspire One netbook came before they moved to a mechanical hard 
> drive; it simply doesn't use swap.

that's a low end netbook. 

normal laptops use swap. 

> Swap was necessary in the old days when you had 8megs of RAM and needed 
> more to run KDE.  But the more memory, the less need for swap.  I just 
> realized last week I turned off swap by accident, I haven't noticed any 
> problem as a result, but then I have 2gigs of RAM. So many people now have 
> more, that swap becomes less and less important.  If you find swap is 
> being used a lot, then it's time to consider more RAM, rather than how to 
> handle swap.

2 gigs of ram is nothing these days.

> Anything that does a lot of writes to the disk is something to watch if 
> you've got a solid state drive.  Deal with setting things up so you aren't 
> doing that constant write, and the solid state drive will be fine.

there is no need to worry about it and nothing to set up.

early ssds had reliability issues but those have long been resolved.
ssds will outlast hard drives and with a *lot* more speed.

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

#5584

On 28/06/2014 2:25 PM, Ant 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?

Yeah, worrying about the lifespan of an SSD is useless, it'll outlast 
any hard drive these days. Just put the pagefile on it, if you like.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#5586

On 7/2/2014 11:16 PM PT, Yousuf Khan 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?
>
> Yeah, worrying about the lifespan of an SSD is useless, it'll outlast
> any hard drive these days. Just put the pagefile on it, if you like.

Cool and thanks. :)
-- 
"Forbear, thou great good husband, little ant." --Richard Lovelace
    /\___/\         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]

#5587

In article <53b4f520$1@news.bnb-lp.com>, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28/06/2014 2:25 PM, Ant 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?
> 
> Yeah, worrying about the lifespan of an SSD is useless, it'll outlast 
> any hard drive these days. Just put the pagefile on it, if you like.

Yep, just don't put your swapfile on it.  ;-)

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

#5588

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:16:02 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 28/06/2014 2:25 PM, Ant 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?
> 
> Yeah, worrying about the lifespan of an SSD is useless, it'll outlast
> any hard drive these days. Just put the pagefile on it, if you like.
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan


Can you refer to any professionally done publications substantiating 
that?  Or is it just your gut feeling?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

csiph-web