On Friday 19 Jul 2013 17:43:39 Dale wrote:
> luis jure wrote:
> > on 2013-07-19 at 01:56 Dale wrote:
> >> Do you really want to put /home on a SSD?
> > 
> > well, not actually the whole /home, the SSD is too small for that. i'm
> > not sure yet, i might keep /home on a HDD and mount the partition on the
> > SSD as a directory under /home for some special uses. or the other way
> > around...
> 
> Size was one issue I thought of but I was more concerned with the wear
> and tear part but that was explained by others.  It seems that is not as
> much a issue any more.
> 
> At one time, I had a /data directory.  I stored large stuff there:
> camera pics, videos, audio stuff and such.  If you put /home on SSD, you
> could always put the larger stuff on another mount point.  One thing
> about Linux, you can mount stuff wherever you want.
> 
> Post back how it works out and any speed improvements you see.  I'm
> really curious since I would like to get one that is at least big enough
> for the OS itself.  My /home is over 1Tb, that is Tb too. I'm not buying
> one big enough for all that.  lol
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

I have a MUCH smaller /home than Dale and on a new box I was thinking of 
having it on a HDD, along with all things portage related.  I typically resync 
3 -4 times a week but I am not sure how much erase/write cycles this 
represents.  Also, /home is written all the time with mail and various 
application profile folders, browser cache and what have you.  That's why I 
was thinking that /usr/portage, /var/tmp/portage, /var/log, /home and /swap 
were candidates for HDD.

I guess the rest under / does not change that often and a weekly or even 
monthly back up would be all that is necessary to facilitate recovery when the 
SSD dies on me.

Am I being too cautious with current technology SSDs?

BTW, unless anyone advises differently, I was thinking of buying a SanDisk 
Extreme II, SATA III, 2.5" 240GB SSD.  I read that its SLC cache improves 
speed and reliability, but I don't know if true.

-- 
Regards,
Mick