On Feb 3, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> The interesting thing (for me) was that
>> the SMART data from the drive gave it an all clear right to the end. But
>> unlike the SSDs, there was plenty of behavioural warning to remind me to
>> have the backups up to date
The interesting thing (for me) was that
the SMART data from the drive gave it an all clear right to the end. But
unlike the SSDs, there was plenty of behavioural warning to remind me to
have the backups up to date and a spare at the ready...
FWIW, of the three-four dozen or so drives I have
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:46:42 + "Digby R.S. Tarvin"
wrote:
Digby R.S. Tarvin writes:
>
> Thats why I described my use case - to make the MTBF figures meaningful. As
> I said, I have my system configured so that most heavy write accesses go to
> rotating media. I
Thats why I described my use case - to make the MTBF figures meaningful. As
I said, I have my system configured so that most heavy write accesses go to
rotating media. I typically try to have my system partitions mounted read
only, except var and tmp. I am currently using 32GB uSD devices for
On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 18:49:50 + "Digby R.S. Tarvin"
wrote:
Digby R.S. Tarvin writes:
>
> My experience of running normal (read mostly) Linux filesystems on solid
> state media is that SSD is more robust but far less reliable than rotating
> media.
>
> MTBF for rotating
My experience of running normal (read mostly) Linux filesystems on solid
state media is that SSD is more robust but far less reliable than rotating
media.
MTBF for rotating media for me has been around 10 years. MTBF for SSD has
been about 2. And the SSD always seems to fail catastrophically -
not so sure about mtbf. but it's too early to tell.
More the lidea of reading from the ssd first.
The way fs(4) driver works is you order your drives
with the first written at one end of the queue and first read at the other.
I assume the read rate and rotational latency of an ssd should
be better than hdd so I get the best performace.
I should
what's the rationale behind writing to the hdd first?
i would say ssd is an excellent chiice for venti, the argument is less clear
for fossil which us much more like a traditional filesystem.
fossil and venti do not have the performance if a modern filesystem bur an ssd
can make them fast enough for most use (i dont stream movies from my plan9
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018, at 9:39 AM, lchg wrote:
> As I know, fossil/venti file system is log-structured, so it may be
> good for flash devices, especially in extending life of flash devices.
As far as I know the device itself will even the wear by remapping the
blocks it presents to the computer. I
As I know, fossil/venti file system is log-structured, so it may be good
for flash devices, especially in extending life of flash devices.
12 matches
Mail list logo