Does constant writing to “files” in `/proc` or `/sys` reduce the life of my SSD due to its limited number...
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
My laptop has a SSD drive and I run a script which writes every other second to /sys/class/thermal/cooling_device4/cur_state. I don't think this would count as writing to the SSD and thus reducing its remaining number of writing cycles, since procfs and sysfs are virtual filesystems.
Or am I overlooking something and this is an issue?
linux files filesystems proc ssd
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
My laptop has a SSD drive and I run a script which writes every other second to /sys/class/thermal/cooling_device4/cur_state. I don't think this would count as writing to the SSD and thus reducing its remaining number of writing cycles, since procfs and sysfs are virtual filesystems.
Or am I overlooking something and this is an issue?
linux files filesystems proc ssd
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
1
You are right. Not writing to the SSD doesn't count as writing to the SSD. The same would hold for a RAM drive such astmpfs.
– glglgl
Dec 8 at 12:29
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
My laptop has a SSD drive and I run a script which writes every other second to /sys/class/thermal/cooling_device4/cur_state. I don't think this would count as writing to the SSD and thus reducing its remaining number of writing cycles, since procfs and sysfs are virtual filesystems.
Or am I overlooking something and this is an issue?
linux files filesystems proc ssd
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
My laptop has a SSD drive and I run a script which writes every other second to /sys/class/thermal/cooling_device4/cur_state. I don't think this would count as writing to the SSD and thus reducing its remaining number of writing cycles, since procfs and sysfs are virtual filesystems.
Or am I overlooking something and this is an issue?
linux files filesystems proc ssd
linux files filesystems proc ssd
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
asked Dec 8 at 11:29
Jayjayyy
1758
1758
1
You are right. Not writing to the SSD doesn't count as writing to the SSD. The same would hold for a RAM drive such astmpfs.
– glglgl
Dec 8 at 12:29
add a comment |
1
You are right. Not writing to the SSD doesn't count as writing to the SSD. The same would hold for a RAM drive such astmpfs.
– glglgl
Dec 8 at 12:29
1
1
You are right. Not writing to the SSD doesn't count as writing to the SSD. The same would hold for a RAM drive such as
tmpfs.– glglgl
Dec 8 at 12:29
You are right. Not writing to the SSD doesn't count as writing to the SSD. The same would hold for a RAM drive such as
tmpfs.– glglgl
Dec 8 at 12:29
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You're entirely correct: virtual filesystems like procfs and sysfs are not stored on disk at all. Their contents are generated on-demand based on kernel data structures in RAM, and writing into them (if possible at all) translates into making changes to in-memory kernel settings.
Writing to procfs or sysfs cannot possibly have any impact to SSD lifetime.
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
1
No, repeated writing to/sys/class/thermal(as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into/sys/block/<device name>/and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...
– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You're entirely correct: virtual filesystems like procfs and sysfs are not stored on disk at all. Their contents are generated on-demand based on kernel data structures in RAM, and writing into them (if possible at all) translates into making changes to in-memory kernel settings.
Writing to procfs or sysfs cannot possibly have any impact to SSD lifetime.
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
1
No, repeated writing to/sys/class/thermal(as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into/sys/block/<device name>/and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...
– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You're entirely correct: virtual filesystems like procfs and sysfs are not stored on disk at all. Their contents are generated on-demand based on kernel data structures in RAM, and writing into them (if possible at all) translates into making changes to in-memory kernel settings.
Writing to procfs or sysfs cannot possibly have any impact to SSD lifetime.
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
1
No, repeated writing to/sys/class/thermal(as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into/sys/block/<device name>/and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...
– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
You're entirely correct: virtual filesystems like procfs and sysfs are not stored on disk at all. Their contents are generated on-demand based on kernel data structures in RAM, and writing into them (if possible at all) translates into making changes to in-memory kernel settings.
Writing to procfs or sysfs cannot possibly have any impact to SSD lifetime.
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
You're entirely correct: virtual filesystems like procfs and sysfs are not stored on disk at all. Their contents are generated on-demand based on kernel data structures in RAM, and writing into them (if possible at all) translates into making changes to in-memory kernel settings.
Writing to procfs or sysfs cannot possibly have any impact to SSD lifetime.
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
answered Dec 8 at 11:48
telcoM
15.4k12143
15.4k12143
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
1
No, repeated writing to/sys/class/thermal(as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into/sys/block/<device name>/and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...
– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
add a comment |
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
1
No, repeated writing to/sys/class/thermal(as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into/sys/block/<device name>/and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...
– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
But if I'm nit-picking, is that possible writing to /sys control the state of your SSD controller so it will have some impact to the hardware?
– 神秘德里克
Dec 8 at 12:39
1
1
No, repeated writing to
/sys/class/thermal (as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into /sys/block/<device name>/ and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
No, repeated writing to
/sys/class/thermal (as the original poster asked) won't have any impact to SSD hardware :-) To have any significant effect, you would have to write into /sys/block/<device name>/ and basically deliberately pick the worst possible settings for a SSD. Even so, modern consumer SSDs have plenty of writing cycles and efficient wear leveling: typically the vendors promise that you could write more than a terabyte every day and the SSD would still have the expected lifetime. Of course, sometimes those promises can be mistaken or less than truthful otherwise...– telcoM
Dec 8 at 12:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486750%2fdoes-constant-writing-to-files-in-proc-or-sys-reduce-the-life-of-my-ssd%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
You are right. Not writing to the SSD doesn't count as writing to the SSD. The same would hold for a RAM drive such as
tmpfs.– glglgl
Dec 8 at 12:29