| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 03:22:11 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>>> Do you really want to put /home on a SSD? |
| 5 |
>>> Why not? |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> /home is the most frequently-read directory on most systems, and SSD |
| 8 |
>>> is ideal for that. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> If you are concerned about wear-levelling, /home is not the danger |
| 11 |
>>> point |
| 12 |
>> Interesting. I'm not sure I would want mine on a SSD even if it would |
| 13 |
>> fit on one. The only part that might help would be my .kde |
| 14 |
>> and .mozilla directory. |
| 15 |
> SSDs are not like USB flash drives, and it's been years since I managed |
| 16 |
> to wear one of those out (mainly due to a kernel bug). They have |
| 17 |
> lifetimes similar to spinny disks these days. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Now I really feel about better getting one. That was my concern and |
| 22 |
reason for the question. I'm sure /home gets its share of reads and |
| 23 |
writes and was thinking the writes would cause a problem over time. |
| 24 |
Maybe they are better now than they was a while back. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks for the update. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Dale |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
:-) :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives