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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dcd1b23.9040...@hardwarefreak.com
