| 1 |
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:45:36 +0100, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I have a MUCH smaller /home than Dale and on a new box I was thinking |
| 4 |
> of having it on a HDD, along with all things portage related. I |
| 5 |
> typically resync 3 -4 times a week but I am not sure how much |
| 6 |
> erase/write cycles this represents. Also, /home is written all the |
| 7 |
> time with mail and various application profile folders, browser cache |
| 8 |
> and what have you. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Which is why you want it on the fastest device possible. The whole point |
| 11 |
of a faster drive is to speed up IO intensive operations. If you then |
| 12 |
consign specifically those operations to the old HDD, why bother? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Thing like video files can go on a hard drive because they are read far |
| 15 |
more slowly than the drive's speed anyway. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Am I being too cautious with current technology SSDs? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
During a raid on a local chemist's shop, 2000 Viagra tablets were stolen |
| 26 |
Police are looking for hardened criminals! |
Archives