On Jun 18, 2023, al3xu5 via Dng wrote:
> [...]
> The first big question is: is it still appropriate, with current SSD
> discs, try to reduce writings?

Modern SSDs have something like 400x their drive capacity as their
general lifespan. So, if you're not reformatting the drive every day,
you really don't have to worry about it.

In my experience (so, anecdotal at best ;) ) the drives work out to
approximately the same rough "lifespan" of 5-7 years (noting that I do
have SSDs in the 7-10 year age range).

> And then: which mechanical disk should be used for /tmp, /var, swap
> etc...? Better reuse the "old" non-raid system disk (WD 10000rpm), or the
> actual mirrored sdc disk (see above)?

Why not leave /tmp as a tmpfs? /var and swap are probably a wash.

>
> Other doubts are:
> - Is it worth bringing with symbolic links /home/desktop and
> /home/downloads on the mechanical mirrored disk (sdc)?

Why not just leave them on the SSD with the rest of your $HOME? Too
big?


> - About /var: could I limit myself to "move" using symbolic links only
> /var/log, /var/mail, /var/spool, /var/tmp?

Potentially, but what benefit do you think you will get from this?

> - Does this complexity risk leading to an unstable or fragile system?

Not that I am aware. Mostly it just sounds painful.

> - Is this complexity justified compared to the longer duration of the SSD
> disc?

Maybe 15-20 years ago when the drives were essentially "OS-Only" (32/64
GiB), and had lower TBW specs complexity like you describe was probably
warranted. These days, with pretty decent capacity and TBW allowances,
it can make more sense to just stick to simplicity.


--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860