> Swap will destroy SSDs. You thought the write load from logging is bad? Try putting a consumer-grade SSD into a machine with 512 GiB RAM and let the kernel swap to it -- that SSD will be dead in a year.
I have an OCZ Vertex LE in a 32-bit laptop that was my daily driver for somewhat-serious development for the better part of a decade and sees somewhat regular use as a bedside media consumption machine. It ran (and still runs) Gentoo Linux, so -while it was my daily driver- its drive saw _frequent_ writes due to weekly system-updating-build activity.
This machine has 4GiB of RAM installed, of which only 3.2 GiB is available due to weird BIOS limitations. It has _always_ had swap enabled, and has _often_ made heavy use of it.
This SSD has 93,560 power-on hours, and has written 48,384 GiB. As far as I (and SMART) can tell, it's as good as the day I flashed the v1.1 firmware on it.
I don't believe your claim is generally true. Other folks who have intentionally run drives _way_ past their advertised wear-out points have similar stories to mine.
Running a light workload on a consumer SSD is fine. That's what they're designed for. Your ~48 TiB of writes over a decade is well within its design parameters.
If you used it as swap in a server, you could expect something closer to its max write rate, which is on the order of 10-20 TiB per day[1]. Run that for a year and you're at 3+ PiB total writes.
[1] Contemporary reviews say the OCZ Vertex LE had a maximum write throughput of 250 MB/s. Times 3600 (per hour), times 24, converted to IEC notation is 20,116 GiB per day.
I have an OCZ Vertex LE in a 32-bit laptop that was my daily driver for somewhat-serious development for the better part of a decade and sees somewhat regular use as a bedside media consumption machine. It ran (and still runs) Gentoo Linux, so -while it was my daily driver- its drive saw _frequent_ writes due to weekly system-updating-build activity.
This machine has 4GiB of RAM installed, of which only 3.2 GiB is available due to weird BIOS limitations. It has _always_ had swap enabled, and has _often_ made heavy use of it.
This SSD has 93,560 power-on hours, and has written 48,384 GiB. As far as I (and SMART) can tell, it's as good as the day I flashed the v1.1 firmware on it.
I don't believe your claim is generally true. Other folks who have intentionally run drives _way_ past their advertised wear-out points have similar stories to mine.