Is it true that it is a bad idea to put a swap/pagefile on a SSD?

In article , Ant
wrote:

Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
OS X, and Linux follow this rule?

an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

What is your problem?

I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out
fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop
and private server PC.

you read wrong.

get the ssd and enjoy the speed boost.

On 6/29/2014 12:23 PM PT, David W. Hodgins typed:

nonsense. swapping happens as a matter of course on any desktop/laptop
system because physical memory is always limited.

With kde running on the host, and 5 vb sessions running (4 linux with kde,
and one Windows 7 session running ...

$ free -m
...

Here's mine so far:
$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2012 1382 629 0 184 550
-/+ buffers/cache: 648 1364
Swap: 3813 107 3706

Also, VirtualBox was exited since yesterday afternoon PDT. Its swap has
grown overnight.
--
"I don't understand them anymore, these people that travel the
commuter-trains to their dormitory towns. These people call themselves
human, but, by a pressure they do not feel, are forced to do their work
like ants. With what do they fill their time when they are free of work
on their silly little Sundays?" --Antoine de saint-Exupéry, 'Wind, Sand,
and Stars,' 1939
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
A song (i/wa)s playing on this computer: Poom - Les voiles (ripped from
YouTube -- 6-15)

On 6/29/2014 1:53 PM PT, nospam typed:

Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
OS X, and Linux follow this rule?

an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

What is your problem?

I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out
fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop
and private server PC.

you read wrong.

get the ssd and enjoy the speed boost.

I already have a SSD. Just curious. Yes, it's nice. I hope it lasts a
while. I wished they were cheaper and bigger like old fashion HDDs.
--
"Don't stop to stomp ants when the elephants are stampeding." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
A song (i/wa)s playing on this computer: Brooklynn - Mile High

Mine:

snowball:528$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 32216 31499 716 28 2368 22881
-/+ buffers/cache: 6250 25965
Swap: 65535 0 65535

In article , Ant
wrote:

Because that wears out the SSD quickly, and it is better to put it on a
slow HDD. If so, then how do computer (especially laptop/notebook) users
with only a SSD (not hybrids with HDDs) do this? I assume Windows, Mac
OS X, and Linux follow this rule?

an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

What is your problem?

I read and was told that using SSDs for VMs was a bad idea to wear out
fast. 60 GB? Wow, I don't even write that much! Mine is just a desktop
and private server PC.

you read wrong.

get the ssd and enjoy the speed boost.

I already have a SSD. Just curious. Yes, it's nice. I hope it lasts a
while. I wished they were cheaper and bigger like old fashion HDDs.

it's a tradeoff. if you want speed, get ssd. if you want large
capacities, get a hard drive. a good compromise is a combination of
both, such as a fusion drive.

there is no perfect solution for everything.

In article ,
Andreas Rutishauser writes:

an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

Where did those numbers come from?

Don't forget the write amplification mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification

I'm primarily interested in logging short lines of text.
If you flush the file after each write, that turns 50 or 100 bytes
into a pair of 4K pages. But 60 GB is a lot on that scale.

--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.

On 07/01/2014 09:54 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
In article ,
Andreas Rutishauser writes:

an avarage SSD wears in 36 years on avarage use (60 GB writes per day).

Where did those numbers come from?

Perhaps mechanically dividing of
typical 10000 write cycles of multilevel cells in 60 GB SSD
with per 365 days of year.

Don't forget the write amplification mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification

I'm primarily interested in logging short lines of text.
If you flush the file after each write, that turns 50 or 100 bytes
into a pair of 4K pages. But 60 GB is a lot on that scale.



--
Poutnik

A wise man guards words he says,
as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

In article , Ant
writes

Also, VirtualBox was exited since yesterday afternoon PDT. Its swap has
grown overnight.

Modern OSes will use a little swap if it's available, even if there is
plenty of free memory. It's normal and nothing to worry about.

Was it really necessary to cross-post to so many groups?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article , nospam
writes

there are a *lot* of systems with ssd that are 5 years old (or more)
and running just fine, with no signs of ssd failure.

This is well worth a read.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...ssds-actually-
last-a-hell-of-a-long-time/

6 consumer-grade SSDs survived 700TB of writes before the first failures
appeared, and some are still going strong.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
nospam wrote:
there are a *lot* of systems with ssd that are 5 years old (or more)
and running just fine, with no signs of ssd failure.

This is well worth a read.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...ssds-actually-
last-a-hell-of-a-long-time/

6 consumer-grade SSDs survived 700TB of writes before the first failures
appeared, and some are still going strong.

Those tests are done using sequential writes. Real write loads include a
random component that causes write amplification and complicates wear
leveling. I've seen write amplifications between 2 and 4 for recent (one to
two years old) SSDs. Still, assuming 175TB (700/4) writes before failure is
still a lot of writes and more than enough for most current users, even with
a good amount of swap writes included.

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlOyje8ACgkQGQjO2ccW76qQgAD9GdtKm9ECKD EhmgnR0ejFnwbd
1qqT30bXVcUqlVdlXA0A/iwL3PuJXP5I/hQLyqqnkJuCNso4Feoca0+oDUqTcNHm
=k4qf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----