From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 29 18:05:28 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE2E7D9
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:05:28 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B048DAD
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:05:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r4TI5LpB056850;
 Wed, 29 May 2013 12:05:21 -0600 (MDT)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost)
 by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id r4TI5LDe056847;
 Wed, 29 May 2013 12:05:21 -0600 (MDT)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:05:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
Subject: Re: "swap" partition leads to instability?
In-Reply-To: <CAHu1Y72PxQ_Jtw_8RFuph1X60exkEwKvh2WkZtL0Xt0AkOFQzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305291201590.56816@wonkity.com>
References: <1369558712.96152.YahooMailNeo@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20130526160906.4e379016@X220.ovitrap.com>
 <20130526113235.f5dbe768.freebsd@edvax.de>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305261724050.29348@wonkity.com>
 <CA+tpaK106Fu0dKmR-4_e3ZjnjoMb3ZrjWEscXX99v1qj4BzCJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305261813040.30008@wonkity.com>
 <CA+tpaK3QwWJR5F1=1p=hQHvSDXcV_vXkX5W=pbmoQGVrZu3-dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHu1Y72PxQ_Jtw_8RFuph1X60exkEwKvh2WkZtL0Xt0AkOFQzw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3
 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 29 May 2013 12:05:21 -0600 (MDT)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:20:44 +0000
Cc: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>,
 Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>,
 "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>,
 "M. V." <bored_to_death85@yahoo.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:05:28 -0000

On Wed, 29 May 2013, Michael Sierchio wrote:

> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> Normal dynamic wear leveling on a modern SSD will be better than
> imposing an FS- backed swap for 4GB partion occupying a small fraction
> of total drive space.

And you don't think the presence of TRIM--where the SSD can actually 
know which blocks are no longer in use--is worthwhile?