On 20110513_065059, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
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. ;)
...snip
Stan,
I'm sure there can be progress in any technology, but it is surely
true that there was once-upon-a-time, a re-write problem in the
underlying chip technology that goes into today's SSDs. I tend to use
cast off older stuff in my home computing. When, in the past, would
you say that the SSD technology became reliable? It sort of puts a
cutoff on just how old I should put up with. Or did the technology
problems get solved before anything called SSD get offered on the
comsumer market?
And, the rewrite story for thumb drives ( I think that is what the
small, fit in your pocket USB devices are called. ) is the story also
FUD, or do they use a different, inferior technology?