Re: Tracing Filesystem Accesses

[Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>]

On 5/13/2011 2:38 AM, Doug wrote:

> According to some information on the various lists, you should *not* run
> swap on
> a SSD, because the SSD has a limited number of read/write cycles, and
> swap uses
> them up way too quickly.

That's pure FUD.  Read the following soup to nuts:
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html

You've read *speculation*.  There are hundreds of thousands of folks
around the globe using SSDs right now in their workstations for OS +
swap, and in high concurrent write load servers, mainly mail spools.  A
busy mail spool has a higher localized write load than swap.  In either
case I've yet to read of an SSD failing due to worn out cells.

I replaced a failed 4 year old Seagate Barracuda 120GB in my WinXP
workstation less than a month ago with a 32GB Corsair Nova SSD:
http://www.corsair.com/cssd-v32gb2-brkt.html

It was the cheapest ~30GB available at the time, $65 USD at Newegg, on
sale ($79 now).  I partitioned 15GB for XP + aps + swap file, saving the
other 15GB, maybe for a Squeeze desktop install.  Ping me in 5 years and
I'll let you know if this SSD has failed due to worn out cells. ;)

-- 
Stan