On 20/07/13 00:43, Dale wrote: > luis jure wrote: >> on 2013-07-19 at 01:56 Dale wrote: >> >>> Do you really want to put /home on a SSD? >> well, not actually the whole /home, the SSD is too small for that. i'm >> not >> sure yet, i might keep /home on a HDD and mount the partition on the >> SSD as >> a directory under /home for some special uses. or the other way around... >> >> > > > Size was one issue I thought of but I was more concerned with the wear > and tear part but that was explained by others. It seems that is not as > much a issue any more. > > At one time, I had a /data directory. I stored large stuff there: > camera pics, videos, audio stuff and such. If you put /home on SSD, you > could always put the larger stuff on another mount point. One thing > about Linux, you can mount stuff wherever you want. > > Post back how it works out and any speed improvements you see. I'm > really curious since I would like to get one that is at least big enough > for the OS itself. My /home is over 1Tb, that is Tb too. I'm not buying > one big enough for all that. lol > > Dale > > :-) :-) >
One "odd" condition I ran into twice with the ssd + btrfs were filesystems about half full but cant write to because the filesystem was full! After messy crashes it seemed like btrfs would "lose" some files/sectors/whatever and the only way I could recover was an erase cycle (IBM 520 series). It wasnt sub-volumes or other wrinkles as far as I could see, just that btrfs/trim and the underlying disk didn't agree and I couldn't figure out why ... For "my" use case, having good backups (regularly tested by actually needing to use them :) have been an integral part of my ssd "experiences" :) On the other side, the apple laptop with ssd + btrfs on root has been problem free. BillK
