Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
else, is it (already) possible to set options that will only write back
to the disk when it needs to, preferably at shutdown only?

I know there are some options to reduce the amount of writes to a disk,
but how long can a write be avoided?

Related:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/0...a-crams-1.html

On 06/22/08 12:25 pm, Cork Soaker wrote:
> Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
> Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
> else, [...]
>
Really? "Wear out" a solid state device? Perhaps you can expound further
how Windows manages to do such a thing?

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

At Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:46:45 -0700 Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:

>
> On 06/22/08 12:25 pm, Cork Soaker wrote:
> > Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
> > Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
> > else, [...]
> >
> Really? "Wear out" a solid state device? Perhaps you can expound further
> how Windows manages to do such a thing?

If the "Solid State Drive" is implemented with an EEPROM, then it is
possible -- EEPROMs have a limited number of re-write cycles.

>

--
Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk

Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> At Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:46:45 -0700 Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 06/22/08 12:25 pm, Cork Soaker wrote:
>> > Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
>> > Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
>> > else, [...]
>> >
>> Really? "Wear out" a solid state device? Perhaps you can expound further
>> how Windows manages to do such a thing?
>
> If the "Solid State Drive" is implemented with an EEPROM, then it is
> possible -- EEPROMs have a limited number of re-write cycles.

As do "FLASH" rom. Sometimes as low as 100,000 writes.
Better not make a swap partition or swap file on those things...

--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> writes:

> Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> At Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:46:45 -0700 Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 06/22/08 12:25 pm, Cork Soaker wrote:
>>> > Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
>>> > Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
>>> > else, [...]
>>> >
>>> Really? "Wear out" a solid state device? Perhaps you can expound further
>>> how Windows manages to do such a thing?
>>
>> If the "Solid State Drive" is implemented with an EEPROM, then it is
>> possible -- EEPROMs have a limited number of re-write cycles.
>
> As do "FLASH" rom. Sometimes as low as 100,000 writes.
> Better not make a swap partition or swap file on those things...

A flash device without a wear-levelling controller will wear out in a
very short time if used with a normal filesystem. Filesystems like
jffs have wear-levelling built in, so they are suitable for such
devices. I would assume that flash-based storage devices intended as
hard drive replacements have suitable controllers.

--
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

I demand that Cork Soaker may or may not have written...

> Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
> Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
> else, is it (already) possible to set options that will only write back
> to the disk when it needs to, preferably at shutdown only?

# echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/laptop_mode

http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/laptops/

> I know there are some options to reduce the amount of writes to a disk,
> but how long can a write be avoided?

At best, for as long as there's memory available in which to buffer the data.

--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| Let's keep the pound sterling

Man and wife make one fool.

In article <hil2j5-bgc.ln1@quarkbomb.dyndns.org>,
Cork Soaker <Thunderbird@Hardy.invalid> wrote:
> Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
> Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
> else, is it (already) possible to set options that will only write back
> to the disk when it needs to, preferably at shutdown only?

If that's on, and you crash, you're hosed.

--
-eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
> A: It's annoying as hell
> Q: Why do most people hate top-posting? -- Lots42 The Library Avenger
http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote:
> A flash device without a wear-levelling controller will wear out in a
> very short time if used with a normal filesystem. Filesystems like
> jffs have wear-levelling built in, so they are suitable for such
> devices. I would assume that flash-based storage devices intended as
> hard drive replacements have suitable controllers.

Even if the controllers do spread the load across as much of the FLASH as
possible, put a swap on there and it'll be worn out in less than a year,
most likely.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

On 2008-06-23, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote:
> Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>
>> Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>>> At Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:46:45 -0700 Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/22/08 12:25 pm, Cork Soaker wrote:
>>>> > Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
>>>> > Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
>>>> > else, [...]
>>>> >
>>>> Really? "Wear out" a solid state device? Perhaps you can expound further
>>>> how Windows manages to do such a thing?
>>>
>>> If the "Solid State Drive" is implemented with an EEPROM, then it is
>>> possible -- EEPROMs have a limited number of re-write cycles.
>>
>> As do "FLASH" rom. Sometimes as low as 100,000 writes.
>> Better not make a swap partition or swap file on those things...
>
> A flash device without a wear-levelling controller will wear out in a
> very short time if used with a normal filesystem. Filesystems like
> jffs have wear-levelling built in, so they are suitable for such
> devices. I would assume that flash-based storage devices intended as
> hard drive replacements have suitable controllers.
>

I believe that all "SSDs" have wear leveling built in. I am waiting
for their price to come down and am very anxious ot use them,
especially for databases.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Jim Moe wrote:
> On 06/22/08 12:25 pm, Cork Soaker wrote:
>> Given that a lot of hardware is now coming with SSDs, and we all know
>> Windows will wear one of those little buggers out faster than anything
>> else, [...]
>>
> Really? "Wear out" a solid state device? Perhaps you can expound further
> how Windows manages to do such a thing?
>


You don't know??