News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015). Parent comment

Re:An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015) by peller on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @07:36PM (#12916490)
If it's not too big, could you just use tmpfs for compilation, and copy the final results to persistent storage if needed?

Just food for thought; your point remains valid.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015) by toomuchtodo on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @07:54PM (#12916620)
DevOps here: This is the solution. Its also stupid fast if everything is done in RAM (just ensure you're not swapping out to disk).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015) by cgag on Thursday November 10, 2016 @03:59AM (#12918811)
People keep saying this but compiling seems super CPU bound so im confused.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015) by nitrogen on Thursday November 10, 2016 @04:22AM (#12918915)
Disk seeks when lopking up the next file to compile used to be a huge bottleneck.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015) by hvidgaard on Thursday November 10, 2016 @05:05AM (#12919118)
At least for C#, it is entirely CPU bound. Faster CPUs and more cores will increase the IO, but not enough to matter anything.

But the point about SSD endurance still stands, a ramdisk solves that problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An SSD Endurance Experiment: They're All Dead (2015) by Waterluvian on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @08:11PM (#12916731)
Wouldn't this possibly be faster too?

Is there ever a reason to commit to disk anything you don't keep after a reboot?

[ Parent | on HN ]