Avoid Running Torrent Clients on SSD's
Dfg
Admin
If you use torrents from time to time and if you have an SSD drive, it might be logical not to store torrents on it. The picture above shows a system running for 24 hours with Utorrent client working in the background.
Yes, it' my system and no rolling blackout didn't occur for over 25 hours which is awesome. Since the more SSD is used the longer their life becomes it's best to avoid IO intensive tasks. Also, avoid putting mysql there as well.
Comments
However, it off course makes sense not to use a SSD for anything but OS and application installation as they cost a shitload and the performance difference for data storage / retrieval is negligible at best.
I know I/O reads don't really matter but torrents have a way of really testing your HDD over time.
Pretty much this. That is a lot of IOPS though for just a torrent client and any hardware, especially storage devices, being used heavily or moderately will induce constant wear and tear and breakdown of the drive. Just because of the way data is stored it's nearly impossible to run any storage device and not suffer breakdown every second it's on. SSD's actually fair a lot better than mechanical drives just because there are no moving parts and therefore use less electricity and therefore create less heat to cause wear on the drive.
However, the piss poor write limit is really disappointing. The reason SSD's are perfect for the server market is because they've done tests saying they could easily last 3-5 years running medium to max performance 24/7 before data corruption might occur, and by then most servers are looking to upgrade anyways.
Not nearly as much as MySQL or any database software would when being used even moderately. Reading from SSD's is far less important compared to HDD's than writing is. Writing for HDD's is fairly easy, it just spits the data anywhere that isn't being used (hence causing fragmentation) while SSD's have specific assigned cells. Overall, I don't think even if Windows and everything loaded in .5 seconds, that I would upgrade to an SSD for at least another five years. By then hopefully capacity will be 2-3 times bigger than now and for 1/3rd the price or at least 1/2 of what you paid for yours.
Because SSD's use memory chips by the dozen and memory chips are constantly in short supply, sources around the web have said they'll never get lower to a competitive level with HDD's for the next 10 years at least. Just not enough fabs and far too complicated to make since you don't develop 1-5 platters but instead have to focus on 1-3 dozen memory chips and then memory controllers. The write thing needs to be fixed. Even if the max IOPS for all SSD's was 5,000 and min was 2,000 that would be 10-20x faster than any HDD will ever be capable of now and until they are long replaced.
It pisses me off SSD makers are still playing stupid wars with IOPS when they have more serious shit to worry about, but then again the only market and demand is the server one which they must cater to.