Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My home machine is using Linux, with a regular HD and an SSD.

I want to get the most performance out of my system, by placing commonly-read files on the SSD.
After running some diagnostics, I found that ~/.rvm, ~/.cache and ~/.config are the most accessed folders (especially ~/.cache/google-chrome and ~/.config/google-chrome)

My question is:

Is it a good idea to place these folders on the SSD for read-performance, or will the number of writes break the disk within 6 months?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Indrek, ChrisF, Keltari, Mokubai, Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Feb 4 '13 at 1:08

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Specifically from browsers, including Chromium, have a look at (and don't forget about a cron entry!). – skolima Jan 15 '13 at 10:46
So what this does is - it stores cache/profile/etc data in tmpfs and then syncs them to (e.g.) ~/.cache once per hour? So browsers still have persistent cache, but also lightning-fast read speeds? I'm guessing the only potential issue would be that I may need a lot of RAM, is that correct? – x10 Jan 15 '13 at 12:27
That's correct. And depends on what 'lot of RAM' means for you, usually 300MB per browser is enough. Might go as high as 1GB, though. – skolima Jan 16 '13 at 9:18
possible duplicate of What are the pros and cons of a solid-state drive? – Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Feb 4 '13 at 1:08
up vote 7 down vote accepted

You don't really have to worry about the number of writes. It's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to break more than a few sectors on the SSD during its lifecycle unless you keep dd'ing /dev/random onto it day and night.

On the other hand, Linux will automatically cache commonly accessed blocks (and thus files, etc) on your hard disk in memory as it is. So except for the first one or two accesses after a reboot you quite likely won't notice any performance improvements - unless you run synthetic benchmarks or those files contain far more data than you have RAM in the machine.

share|improve this answer
Thank you, that was very informative :) – x10 Jan 15 '13 at 9:18
you're welcome ;) – Magnus Jan 15 '13 at 9:23
This is a good answer. Quite often I forget the caching linux does. One additionall adivce: having /tmp residing in RAM as a tmpfs can allow your applications to have a "playground" that does not cause any wearout. This then can be used for the browsercache location. – humanityANDpeace Jan 15 '13 at 10:16
Thanks, I've already placed /tmp /var and some others in tmpfs, it works great :) I'll try to place the cache in /tmp, and see what happens. – x10 Jan 15 '13 at 12:29

Short answer: YES

I am actually doing that for almost 2 years, and nothing has happened. Todays wearlevel prevention algorithms are even better, so you should not mind it at all unless you use your PCs more than 20 years.

Also a question. Why would you want to slow down the most frequently accessed ones? You kind of lose the point of using an SSD at all.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the answer. As for your question - well, my SSD is on /, my normal HD is on /home. ~/.config is inside /home so it was on the slow HD by default. – x10 Jan 15 '13 at 9:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .