From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov  3 21:30:34 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42653ED
 for <stable@freebsd.org>; Sat,  3 Nov 2012 21:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from brett@lariat.net)
Received: from lariat.net (lariat.net [66.62.230.51])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B6E8FC08
 for <stable@freebsd.org>; Sat,  3 Nov 2012 21:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04484
 for stable@freebsd.org; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:30:24 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:30:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
Message-Id: <201211032130.PAA04484@lariat.net>
To: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Why is SU+J undesirable on SSDs?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:30:34 -0000

Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and am wondering: why is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that they have good wear
leveling)? I have been enabling it on systems with SSDs, hoping that between
the lack of rotating media and the journaling I would have very robust
systems.

--Brett Glass