From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9CB1381F3 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E62EFE09B3; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C42E0933 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id kp1so447852pab.35 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=1FP92fB75A1Rp4xX+dMxsGHuEJ9MVpQHwWaJ8MYOC2g=; b=hyOUcH3YbwlQeg3FFi2mEBcaHZJx7nks4PCVUtSH8HNgNP+8AcW/YVkwDskpSGZwT0 0KFu0OptIqfQddTkqs13MawpbX8JCjGhiVKaOuV9nnw5sYSTc3nMMn1/CsSpGOcvnePW FHQ7CqrLHagn21MvcNLkUH+M8zkfM2KJp85p+fxfi+pjLAHdi24rU3WtN71neYPdN4aT IkKwoHPAaWj5AzQIc6ZFShbsKm4/9e/bn4UkT52ZgZsiQ0f7l2NYkkjGteirlkac5F/h 2yAAfBobgu+LN/a0475rZIPYdyaiXW8t2/vPKuUaVDbzh3H/U1WyHV6U1wtaTH7z+1p0 yh7Q== X-Received: by 10.66.161.166 with SMTP id xt6mr19939422pab.87.1374260573589; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: paul.hartman@gmail.com Received: by 10.70.62.105 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201307191945.46099.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> References: <20130718182232.5c1301ce@acme7.acmenet> <20130719114234.332ff09e@acme7.acmenet> <51E96CBB.4080300@gmail.com> <201307191945.46099.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> From: Paul Hartman Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:02:33 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9DjZDlioWSnNe1QEfvxgdlo1x4Q Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: e5466dec-b08d-47dc-857b-b5fdf979695e X-Archives-Hash: 79b428e42a9cd98aeaa672212e8c6ed7 On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Mick wrote: > 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. /usr/portage is one of the things that benefits the most from being on a SSD, thousands of tiny files scattered all over the place. It really is a tremendous difference compared to running portage on a 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? I think you are. Unless you are moving massive terabytes of data across your drive on a constant basis I would not worry about regular everyday write activity being a problem. I think the SSD is more likely to die due to electrical shock or surge than by normal wear and tear. Of course backups are always a good idea, no matter what. :) Old SSDs that did not support TRIM would suffer write amplification after a certain amount of data had been written to them, but any modern SSD and modern OS will keep it nice and tidy. > 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. My personal experience is with these: Samsung 830, 128GB Samsung 840, 250GB Intel 330, 180GB Sandisk Extreme, 120GB Sandisk Extreme, 240GB (note mine are the older Extreme, not the new Extreme II's that you're looking at) The Samsung 830 and Intel 330 are the winners, they consistently had the best random read/write performance in my testing, as well as intangible "feeling" of responsiveness. The Samsung 840 had lower write speeds (because it is TLC). The Sandisk Extreme had a bit worse random I/O performance than the leaders, but still not bad. The worst part about the Sandisks was that it took them forever to release a firmware upgrade. They used the infamous buggy Sandforce firmware, which every other SSD maker released fixes for, but it took Sandisk what seemed like an eternity to finally make it available.