From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec  2 02:32:33 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D8C139
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Mon,  2 Dec 2013 02:32:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com (mail-pb0-x235.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFF4A16F3
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Mon,  2 Dec 2013 02:32:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id ma3so17713709pbc.26
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:32:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=XTgloElQKWAhPetguT9bn1fJG6uhj2eMdBrfiu19uqs=;
 b=HSn933XFw+98E057kEXth1xW48CwXmE77GCN576HKlRskeodgwwuwcSpXO33n+3msw
 oSVS/VdNEhuCDqgMoIUXA5VPJBTv4Ym+JokZjXeGX6CW/u+HUDB14I+fXlHqWFdKhBMn
 y2/qCBzNrlq9DRuA47AkuEBneLXHCCvekLn4U2+pEGN5pP0zZK8B1Q7HVASFGhx5F63e
 1R/dQVQmxd5C+SeLFF5Dccv32+KoHKNpWcEOEwJDyoaEn7HDgq0edkcDYVFD8P6m86mO
 5KTgTMhx9RIDKYvWxAdsB0X7k+xXX/0zIFoAiuG3WZjRFe8aPLyTsRXrwoNCIpLojQxU
 7MsQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.245.227 with SMTP id xr3mr305526pbc.182.1385951553464;
 Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.92.79 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:32:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1381005634317-5849247.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: <1380880223590-5848720.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <524EEE40.5060208@gmail.com>
 <CACpH0McMfQ3r-n-ijL6Aoum=QoMY_FczBzu3vt+cYwCJkCNOzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1381005634317-5849247.post@n5.nabble.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 20:32:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+tpaK0Nkw8fN-TmYqAwudHTi2RpmidNmK0UTae040AQ+X7NLA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Questions re swap-on-zfs
From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>
To: Beeblebrox <zaphod@berentweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.16
Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:32:34 -0000

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Beeblebrox <zaphod@berentweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> want to minimise usage of swap-on-SSD
> so as to prevent SSD fatigue for the swap area.
>

This is an invalid concern or at least an inadequately worded one.  All
modern SSD's use static wear leveling.  This plus leaving approximately 10%
of the drive unpartitioned/unused will ensure you'll get as close to the
theoricial limit that one can reasonable achieve.

Swap-on-ZFS is bad for all the reasons swap-on-UFS is and more.

-- 
Adam