Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 1106371" data-attributes="member: 82144">That sounds like a good idea to me.In short: I wouldn't recommend putting the timeshift or recording folder on an SSD. It is okay for a short term test, but in the longer term I'd recommend you consider another option. Why? Well, because timeshifting and recording do a lot of writing to disk. SSD life/longevity is tied to the number of write operations. The more writing you do per day, the shorter the SSD will last. It is true that having the timeshift folder on an SSD would give you slightly faster channel changes and skipping back/forward, however you're trading that off against the lifetime of the SSD. For me the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it. I'd rather have my SSD last for longer than have minimally faster channel changing.As above: it is not generally advisable. In fact, quite the opposite.Regards,mm</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 1106371, member: 82144"] That sounds like a good idea to me. In short: I wouldn't recommend putting the timeshift or recording folder on an SSD. It is okay for a short term test, but in the longer term I'd recommend you consider another option. Why? Well, because timeshifting and recording do a lot of writing to disk. SSD life/longevity is tied to the number of write operations. The more writing you do per day, the shorter the SSD will last. It is true that having the timeshift folder on an SSD would give you [I]slightly [/I]faster channel changes and skipping back/forward, however you're trading that off against the lifetime of the SSD. For me the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it. I'd rather have my SSD last for longer than have minimally faster channel changing. As above: it is [B]not[/B] generally advisable. In fact, quite the opposite. Regards, mm [/QUOTE]

Verification