The conversation on Security Now I linked to directly refuted that post on the MSDN blogs. The post looked at the performance issue, not at the issue of wear on the SSD.
Besides, who needs a pagefile anymore - it's still miles better to simply have more ram. It's not like Ram is expensive. --------- Brian On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Winterlight <[email protected]>wrote: > At 11:37 AM 2/1/2011, you wrote: > >> This is exactly why you shouldn't have your windows pagefile on your SSD. >> > > I don't think so... from > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx > > > > Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? > > Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential > writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well. > > In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on > pagefile reads and writes, we find that > Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1, > Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or > equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB. > Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to > 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size. > > In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable > performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files > better than the pagefile to place on an SSD. >
