| 1 |
On Friday 29 July 2011 14:18:41 Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> Something that's been tickling my brain for a couple years now, and |
| 3 |
> you guys are probably the right ones to ask. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I haven't dropped coin for an SSD (yet), but I was wondering about |
| 6 |
> uses for them beyond using them for / or /home. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> 1) What about sitting swap (partition, file, whatever) on the SSD? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
NO! |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For $DEITY's sake- NO! |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
ssds can't withstand many writes (yeah, I know, millions blablabla... earlier |
| 15 |
done than you think). Do Not Do This. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
SSDs are not meant for such a scenario. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Presumably, in scenarios where expanding the RAM in a system is |
| 20 |
> prohibitively expensive, an SSD could reduce the impact of swap |
| 21 |
> thrash. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
no, it is increasing the impact of SSD trash. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> 2) While my system rarely goes above using 2-2.5GB of RAM, I enjoy |
| 26 |
> having 6-8GB of RAM, just for the file cache. Of course, I lose that |
| 27 |
> when I reboot; the cache needs to be repopulated. Has there been any |
| 28 |
> work in the kernel for doing things like Vista/Win7's ReadyBoost? |
| 29 |
> ReadyBoost has a ridiculous limit to only using 4GB of a flash drive, |
| 30 |
> but I'd think that an 80GB SSD would be a massive performance |
| 31 |
> improvement. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
with a SSD filecache is not that important anymore - and every usb-stick is |
| 35 |
slower than a SSD. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Obviously, for something like Gentoo, putting an SSD-based filesystem |
| 38 |
> under /var/tmp makes a lot of sense, but what other uses have been |
| 39 |
> tried? How'd they work out? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
no, /var/tmp is very not important from a performance point of view - with the |
| 42 |
exception of /var/tmp/portage - and that is a candidate for tempfs. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
#163933 |
Archives