New box, memory problem
Rashkae
ubuntu at tigershaunt.com
Sat Oct 22 15:56:03 UTC 2016
On 16-10-22 10:39 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> Lifetime, no, not much; performance, more so... but if there is no
> drawback or performance penalty, why not?
Because no one has ever experienced Scrambled data on a Flash memory
stick with a Fat Filesystem that was pulled out at a bad time......
Journaling = good, even on SSD and Flash drives.
Relying on the Mercy of Filesystem repair utilities to recover an
inconsistent filesystem is bad.
True that performance can be improved on high reliability systems by
disabling Journaling. But this is pretty special case tuning, and bad
advise to be tossing around.
Also, worrying about wear on flash drives from a bit of swapping,
journaling, and even atime updates, (especially with relatime now the
default.) is entirely a waste of thought.
As an example, here's the SMART status of a 128GB SSD that has been my
system drive for over 3 years.:
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0000 005 000 000 Old_age
Offline - 5
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 30729
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 383
232 Available_Reservd_Space 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 18454112666
233 Media_Wearout_Indicator 0x0000 096 000 000 Old_age
Offline - 96
I've made absolutely no attempt to minimize or reduce writes, (other
than using spinning media for my big media files and video muxing
projects.). Swap is written to the SSD on regular basis, jounaling is
left on... etc. Over 3 years of constant use, but the drive has only
used 4% of it's expected write cycle wear. At this level of use, I
should be able to go about 90 years before wear from writing to flash
becomes an issue.
More information about the ubuntu-users
mailing list