This is exactly why you shouldn't have your windows pagefile on your SSD. Although it would certainly make pagefile faster than hell, it would burn through the disk faster than normal. However, that might mean it gets used up in 5 years instead of 10.
There was a good discussion of this issue of putting the windows pagefile on an SSD in the recent Security Now. Transcript is here (do a keyword search for "aloke" to get right to the SSD discussion): http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-284.htm --------- Brian On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Zaske <[email protected]> wrote: > There are several new controllers coming out in the next few months > including the new one from Sandforce the SF-2000 that's supposed to almost > double performance on current tech. Crucial has announced an update to their > RealSSD C300 that improves performance and Marvel and others as well. > > > > On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:59:50 -0600, FORC5 <[email protected]> wrote: > > I suppose that is why SSD's are technology in flux (IMO) and I may have >> froggy hopped too soon there also. My limited understanding which may be in >> error is that they will not delete data until new is written, which I >> understand as files are not overwritten. >> Jump in anyone. >> fp >> >> At 11:42 AM 2/1/2011, DSinc Poked the stick with: >> >>> I thought SSD's worked best, lasted longest, in a Write Once-Read Many >>> I/O scenario. I would think that misc. temp files, page files, logs, dumps, >>> and other Windows operational stuff would quickly use up the finite number >>> of SSD internal operations. JMHO. And I freely admit that I do NOT fully >>> comprehend the internals of the Windows OS. I do see that XP is very stable >>> against my attempts at PEBCAK. Still, I still see the OS grow larger over >>> time. >>> >>> I so know I am on some thin ice ATM.......... :) >>> Best, >>> Duncan >>> >>> >> > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >
