[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 29/04/2010 09:11, Grant Sewell wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:28:19 +0100 Julian Hall wrote:Something I've wondered about for a while, but keep forgetting to ask. As I understand it, SSD lifespan is measured in numbers of r/w cycles, as discussed at http://hothardware.com/News/Two-Methods-for-Measuring-SSD-Lifespans/ With that in mind is it such a great idea to put an OS on an SSD as it will be almost constantly engaged in reading and writing, far more so I would have thought than a data drive - depending on the user of course. JulianIs it such a great idea to put an OS on an SSD? If the lifespan is rated in the number of write actions on any given part of the drive, then it probably wouldn't be a very clever idea putting the regularly changing parts of the system on it... /var, /home? But the bits that don't change very often... why not? The beauty is being able to have all the various bits of the filesystem spread out in multiple places and yet still have it work nice and cleanly 'cos you've mounted them in the right place. Grant.
That was pretty much my point :) Julian -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html