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

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?

Currently, I have a Debian stable box that uses an 115 GB Corsair Force
Series F115 SSD since 11/24/2001. It ran almost 24/7. I do have a very
old PATA/IDE HDD too, but it is mostly for storage. I'd think it would
be too slow for virtual memory (VM) if it was on it. However, my Debian
box (2 GB of RAM) doesn't use it much according to top with a VM (512 MB
of RAM for an updated Windows XP Pro. SP3):

$ top - 11:13:23 up 23 days, 4:39, 3 users, load average: 0.21, 0.11,
0.08
Tasks: 174 total, 1 running, 172 sleeping, 1 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 1.1 us, 1.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 97.7 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si,
0.0 st
KiB Mem: 2060516 total, 1976072 used, 84444 free, 223096 buffers
KiB Swap: 3905532 total, 99548 used, 3805984 free, 439456 cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
4907 ant 20 0 1477m 655m 593m S 0.3 32.6 9:21.44 VirtualBox
3231 ant 20 0 326m 135m 4880 S 0.0 6.7 2:06.69 ruby
4631 ant 20 0 2955m 104m 36m S 1.3 5.2 15:42.50
plasma-desktop
4621 ant 20 0 2689m 73m 28m S 1.3 3.6 20:39.79 kwin
10202 ant 20 0 389m 41m 27m S 0.0 2.1 0:05.09 kscreenlocker
5290 root 20 0 178m 41m 17m S 1.7 2.0 187:13.77 Xorg
4835 ant 20 0 589m 39m 20m S 0.0 1.9 0:10.53 VirtualBox
4665 ant 20 0 785m 36m 10m S 0.0 1.8 0:07.64 krunner
4683 ant 20 0 531m 26m 8876 S 0.0 1.3 0:00.78 kmix
4601 ant 20 0 354m 15m 13m S 0.0 0.8 0:00.38 kdeinit4
4628 ant 20 0 619m 14m 6644 S 0.0 0.7 0:01.01 knotify4
4604 ant 20 0 703m 14m 8100 S 0.0 0.7 0:06.77 kded4
4619 ant 20 0 531m 11m 6188 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.37 ksmserver
4708 ant 20 0 283m 10m 6148 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.25 klipper
4680 ant 20 0 364m 10m 6012 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.16
polkit-kde-auth
12819 root 20 0 65312 10m 1732 S 0.0 0.5 1:26.60 python
....

Thank you in advance.
--
"Fall in those single lines like army ants..." --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.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

some ssds even have 10 year warranties. good luck finding a hard drive
with a warranty anywhere near that long.

nospam wrote:
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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

"Even" with swap? Swapping is something that should be
relatively rare. It's there to prevent a major disaster
on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory. The
oddness of those occasions should result in minisule
wear on the swap device.

In effect, it is not sound policy to use an expensive
fast device for swap, as the benefit is just exceedingly
small.

some ssds even have 10 year warranties. good luck finding a hard drive
with a warranty anywhere near that long.

True, which just adds to reasons for doing the right thing
in the first place.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
nospam wrote:
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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

"Even" with swap? Swapping is something that should
be relatively rare. It's there to prevent a major disaster
on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory.

That's not true of plenty of Win systems.

The oddness of those occasions should result in minisule
wear on the swap device.

Ditto.

In effect, it is not sound policy to use an expensive fast
device for swap, as the benefit is just exceedingly small.

But he was talking about the situation where the is nothing else.

some ssds even have 10 year warranties. good luck finding
a hard drive with a warranty anywhere near that long.

True, which just adds to reasons for
doing the right thing in the first place.

Easier said than done at times, like with his system.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

"Even" with swap? Swapping is something that should be
relatively rare.

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

It's there to prevent a major disaster
on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory.

odd occasion?? there is never enough physical memory unless you don't
do much of anything with the computer.

The
oddness of those occasions should result in minisule
wear on the swap device.

an ssd can easily handle swap without any issue. there is no need to
worry about ssd longevity anymore. ssds are *extremely* reliable and
smoking fast and will almost certainly outlast the computer.

In effect, it is not sound policy to use an expensive
fast device for swap, as the benefit is just exceedingly
small.

nonsense.

putting swap on ssd is a *huge* boost to overall system speed. the
difference is *dramatic*.

and ssds are not that expensive anymore either, plus they're completely
silent and not susceptible to shock or sudden motion (not that that's a
big issue with shock sensors but it's not zero either).

some ssds even have 10 year warranties. good luck finding a hard drive
with a warranty anywhere near that long.

True, which just adds to reasons for doing the right thing
in the first place.

with rare exception, the right thing is use ssd for the system, apps &
user data, especially with a computer designed *for* ssd.

a hard drive is well suited for data that is less commonly accessed
and/or doesn't need speed and/or the cost would be prohibitive due to
its size, such as a media library.

however, the key here is that worrying about 'burning out' an ssd due
to excessive use is a myth. it's actually the other way around. a hard
drive will wear out sooner because it has moving parts.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

"Even" with swap? Swapping is something that should be
relatively rare.

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

Only with a poorly designed system.

The only time swap is written to on any of my systems is
shortly after a reboot, as essentially unused memory is
swapped out to provide more space in RAM.

It's there to prevent a major disaster
on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory.

odd occasion?? there is never enough physical memory unless you don't
do much of anything with the computer.

There are lots of systems that have enough RAM installed
to simply not need any installed swap space. That RAM
is typically used as buffering for disk reads, so the
more there is the faster the system appears to be. But
one effect is that there is virtually always enough RAM
for program execution (generally with many GB more
available at any given moment).

Computers that "don't do much of anything" don't need or
use that type of effective design. But those with real
loads do.

The
oddness of those occasions should result in minisule
wear on the swap device.

an ssd can easily handle swap without any issue. there is no need to
worry about ssd longevity anymore. ssds are *extremely* reliable and
smoking fast and will almost certainly outlast the computer.

That is true enough, but has zero significance. Putting
money into an SSD to use as swap space is hilarously
lacking in understanding.

In effect, it is not sound policy to use an expensive
fast device for swap, as the benefit is just exceedingly
small.

nonsense.

putting swap on ssd is a *huge* boost to overall system speed. the
difference is *dramatic*.

Not if the system is properly designed.

and ssds are not that expensive anymore either, plus they're completely
silent and not susceptible to shock or sudden motion (not that that's a
big issue with shock sensors but it's not zero either).

Again, quite true but of no significance.

some ssds even have 10 year warranties. good luck finding a hard drive
with a warranty anywhere near that long.

True, which just adds to reasons for doing the right thing
in the first place.

with rare exception, the right thing is use ssd for the system, apps &
user data, especially with a computer designed *for* ssd.

Exactly. Not for swap space.

a hard drive is well suited for data that is less commonly accessed
and/or doesn't need speed and/or the cost would be prohibitive due to
its size, such as a media library.

"less commonly accessed" describes swap space.

however, the key here is that worrying about 'burning out' an ssd due
to excessive use is a myth. it's actually the other way around. a hard
drive will wear out sooner because it has moving parts.

Which isn't of significance for swap space.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

"Even" with swap? Swapping is something that should be
relatively rare.

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

Only with a poorly designed system.

nonsense.

The only time swap is written to on any of my systems is
shortly after a reboot, as essentially unused memory is
swapped out to provide more space in RAM.

then your system is not a typical system.

It's there to prevent a major disaster
on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory.

odd occasion?? there is never enough physical memory unless you don't
do much of anything with the computer.

There are lots of systems that have enough RAM installed
to simply not need any installed swap space.

and there are lots that aren't. so what?

nearly every computer in use today could benefit from more memory but
there's diminishing returns by adding more.

That RAM
is typically used as buffering for disk reads, so the
more there is the faster the system appears to be.

memory can be used for a lot of things, not just disk caching.

But
one effect is that there is virtually always enough RAM
for program execution (generally with many GB more
available at any given moment).

nonsense.

*one* app might fit into physical memory, but *all* apps won't fit and
switching between them *will* hit swap.

and 'virtually always enough' are weasel words.

Computers that "don't do much of anything" don't need or
use that type of effective design. But those with real
loads do.

what matters is the computers that people actually have and what they
do on them, not how you think it should be.

The
oddness of those occasions should result in minisule
wear on the swap device.

an ssd can easily handle swap without any issue. there is no need to
worry about ssd longevity anymore. ssds are *extremely* reliable and
smoking fast and will almost certainly outlast the computer.

That is true enough, but has zero significance.

it has every significance since the original question was whether
replacing a hard drive with an ssd would 'wear out' due to swap, which
will be on the ssd if the drive is replaced. and the answer is it
won't.

Putting
money into an SSD to use as swap space is hilarously
lacking in understanding.

nobody said anything about putting money into ssd *just* for swap.
where in the world did you come up with that ??

In effect, it is not sound policy to use an expensive
fast device for swap, as the benefit is just exceedingly
small.

nonsense.

putting swap on ssd is a *huge* boost to overall system speed. the
difference is *dramatic*.

Not if the system is properly designed.

wrong. ssd is one of the easiest ways to drastically improve
performance, especially if memory is maxed out which it often is,
unless the computer is older and a sata 3 drive saturates it.

and ssds are not that expensive anymore either, plus they're completely
silent and not susceptible to shock or sudden motion (not that that's a
big issue with shock sensors but it's not zero either).

Again, quite true but of no significance.

it's significant in that it increases reliability as well as the
overall user experience in using the computer.

some ssds even have 10 year warranties. good luck finding a hard drive
with a warranty anywhere near that long.

True, which just adds to reasons for doing the right thing
in the first place.

with rare exception, the right thing is use ssd for the system, apps &
user data, especially with a computer designed *for* ssd.

Exactly. Not for swap space.

swap is included because it's on the same drive in almost every case.

a hard drive is well suited for data that is less commonly accessed
and/or doesn't need speed and/or the cost would be prohibitive due to
its size, such as a media library.

"less commonly accessed" describes swap space.

not even remotely close to true.

however, the key here is that worrying about 'burning out' an ssd due
to excessive use is a myth. it's actually the other way around. a hard
drive will wear out sooner because it has moving parts.

Which isn't of significance for swap space.

of course it is, because when a hard drive fails, it takes out
everything on it, including swap.

once again, the original question was whether ssds would wear out
because swap is on them and the answer is no, even if swap is hit hard.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage 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?

It depends on your swap-load. With normal swap-load, it should
not be much of an issue, unless you run the machine for decades.
However, high swap load can ruin an SSD pretty fast (weeks
to months).

Currently, I have a Debian stable box that uses an 115 GB Corsair Force
Series F115 SSD since 11/24/2001. It ran almost 24/7. I do have a very
old PATA/IDE HDD too, but it is mostly for storage. I'd think it would
be too slow for virtual memory (VM) if it was on it. However, my Debian

All HDDs are "too slow" for virual memory. SSDs are too. Virtual
memory is not there to be "used", it is sort of an attic where
things can be moved (slowly and painfully) when space gets tight.


box (2 GB of RAM) doesn't use it much according to top with a VM (512 MB
of RAM for an updated Windows XP Pro. SP3):

$ top - 11:13:23 up 23 days, 4:39, 3 users, load average: 0.21, 0.11,
0.08
Tasks: 174 total, 1 running, 172 sleeping, 1 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 1.1 us, 1.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 97.7 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si,
0.0 st
KiB Mem: 2060516 total, 1976072 used, 84444 free, 223096 buffers
KiB Swap: 3905532 total, 99548 used, 3805984 free, 439456 cached

You know, you can run a modern Linux without swap. That may
be better. If you run into a high swap load situation, you
will have problems anyways.

Arno


PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
4907 ant 20 0 1477m 655m 593m S 0.3 32.6 9:21.44 VirtualBox
3231 ant 20 0 326m 135m 4880 S 0.0 6.7 2:06.69 ruby
4631 ant 20 0 2955m 104m 36m S 1.3 5.2 15:42.50
plasma-desktop
4621 ant 20 0 2689m 73m 28m S 1.3 3.6 20:39.79 kwin
10202 ant 20 0 389m 41m 27m S 0.0 2.1 0:05.09 kscreenlocker
5290 root 20 0 178m 41m 17m S 1.7 2.0 187:13.77 Xorg
4835 ant 20 0 589m 39m 20m S 0.0 1.9 0:10.53 VirtualBox
4665 ant 20 0 785m 36m 10m S 0.0 1.8 0:07.64 krunner
4683 ant 20 0 531m 26m 8876 S 0.0 1.3 0:00.78 kmix
4601 ant 20 0 354m 15m 13m S 0.0 0.8 0:00.38 kdeinit4
4628 ant 20 0 619m 14m 6644 S 0.0 0.7 0:01.01 knotify4
4604 ant 20 0 703m 14m 8100 S 0.0 0.7 0:06.77 kded4
4619 ant 20 0 531m 11m 6188 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.37 ksmserver
4708 ant 20 0 283m 10m 6148 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.25 klipper
4680 ant 20 0 364m 10m 6012 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.16
polkit-kde-auth
12819 root 20 0 65312 10m 1732 S 0.0 0.5 1:26.60 python
...

Thank you in advance.
--
"Fall in those single lines like army ants..." --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.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

In article , Arno
wrote:

However, high swap load can ruin an SSD pretty fast (weeks
to months).

it doesn't.

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.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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?

ssd doesn't wear out that quickly and you'll probably replace the
computer before the ssd wears out, even with swap on it.

"Even" with swap? Swapping is something that should be
relatively rare.

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

Only with a poorly designed system.

nonsense.

More of *your* endless nonsense on a topic you know little
about.

The only time swap is written to on any of my systems is
shortly after a reboot, as essentially unused memory is
swapped out to provide more space in RAM.

then your system is not a typical system.

It's there to prevent a major disaster
on the odd occasion when there isn't enough memory.

odd occasion?? there is never enough physical memory unless you don't
do much of anything with the computer.

There are lots of systems that have enough RAM installed
to simply not need any installed swap space.

and there are lots that aren't. so what?

You said it "never" happens. Clearly it happens very often!

nearly every computer in use today could benefit from more memory but
there's diminishing returns by adding more.

The diminishing return is not the amount of RAM used for program
execution though. Which is to say, swap space commonly has
nothing to do with how much RAM is provisioned, nor the other
way around.

That RAM
is typically used as buffering for disk reads, so the
more there is the faster the system appears to be.

memory can be used for a lot of things, not just disk caching.

So?

But
one effect is that there is virtually always enough RAM
for program execution (generally with many GB more
available at any given moment).

nonsense.

*one* app might fit into physical memory, but *all* apps won't fit and
switching between them *will* hit swap.

and 'virtually always enough' are weasel words.

I've got a box here that typically shows a load average well into
double digits when I'm editing images. It has never swapped out
a running program.

[remaining garbage snipped]

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)