Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ssd swap - high usage of Terabytes Written
- Thread starter Forti
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Sorry for misunderstanding, i just said to some man that you cannot boot from external if your internal ssd fails, maybe even if fail means read-only storage, thats because of M1 changes. So its better to start using only external ssd after 250/500/etc TBW, based on your capacity, if you don't have money for potencial motherboard replacement. Nothing personal, just reduced cost.
Also another thing I've noticed.
The latest update of OneDrive has halved the amount of writes to disk. I was usually at about 7-10 GB per workday before now I'm at 3-4 GB.
The latest update of OneDrive has halved the amount of writes to disk. I was usually at about 7-10 GB per workday before now I'm at 3-4 GB.
This just made my day, thank you! I was trying to drag the URL to the dock, but I only manage to drag it to the very right of the dock and the icon is a globe, which was not ideal. Thank you so much for your solution, it's perfect!
This is exactly what I didn’t know I needed! Now I can have ’Outlook’, ‘Teams’, and ‘ServiceNow’ running in my Dock Without having to register my MBP with my work. They’re still just web apps, but they are starting to gain parity with their regular apps. Sorta.
:::Anyway, trying to stay on track here- I reinstalled macOS 11.2.3 last week and was at just over 25TBW before. Today I’m at 33.4TBW, for a 2TB MBP w/ 16GB, using up about 1½ TB of data... I think I’m doing just fine. The Photos app has been stuck on “Restoring from iCloud…” for days now, too. I was assuming the TBW by now would be much higher than it is. Whatever was/is causing this issue seems to me to have been fixed by either 11.2.x or 11.2.3 as I can’t recall exactly when my high’ish TBW slowed.. I still wish I knew how much the drive was at when I got it out of the box.
Last edited:
If not I have to ask just how stupid was this bank to run a postgres server on any of what are entry level machines? That like using a crowbar in place of hammer; yes you can use it that way but it is really really dumb.
I'm pretty sure that the IT requirements for banks (especially their servers) is heavily regulated and there are a lot of requirements. At least in most western countries. A bank wouldn't just slap a PGSQL onto a laptop and call it a day for their production systems.
If that's really the truth, it was probably a test machine.
If that's really the truth, it was probably a test machine.
Edge has been working great for me on my M1 Macbook Pro as an alternative to Safari for much reduced SSD writes, but there was just one situation in which i noticed Edge writing more than Safari:
When streaming 4k Video on youtube with Safari, there would be no writes as the video was being stored in RAM, whereas Edge seems to write the video to SSD cache. However, I've now stopped this from happening by setting all of the Microsoft Edge Cache folders to Read only. And, as expected, no more SSD writes when watching youtube!
Personally I don't need the browser writing to cache at all as I have a decently fast internet connection, and I've noticed no change in my browsing experience.
This leads me to wonder, where does Safari store its cache? If I were to set those to read only too I imagine the Safari excessive caching would be stopped too, and I could potentially go back to using safari without chewing up my SSD in the process🤔
When streaming 4k Video on youtube with Safari, there would be no writes as the video was being stored in RAM, whereas Edge seems to write the video to SSD cache. However, I've now stopped this from happening by setting all of the Microsoft Edge Cache folders to Read only. And, as expected, no more SSD writes when watching youtube!
Personally I don't need the browser writing to cache at all as I have a decently fast internet connection, and I've noticed no change in my browsing experience.
This leads me to wonder, where does Safari store its cache? If I were to set those to read only too I imagine the Safari excessive caching would be stopped too, and I could potentially go back to using safari without chewing up my SSD in the process🤔
Not upgradable/replaceable so designed for obsolescence and greed. Surface Pro 7+, X, etc. are thinner and have replaceable SSD.
If it's a test/dev environment it doesn't matter what it runs.
Or maybe battery life. The M1 has the SSD controller on the SoC. I don't think there is any way to have replaceable SSD with an integrated SSD controller and separate Flash.
Nice try but Surface Pro X has storage controller on ARM SoC and has replaceable SSD.
Is that using the small M.2 form factor. I was just trying to figure out if I was wrong. Most M.2 NVMe seems to have a controller on the module but I did see the smaller form factor that didn't seem to. Any references that I could read?
The insider preview 21.041.0228.0001 also appears to be using less memory on the M1's as well (Big Sur Beta 4).
I looked at the Safari Network (Cache) on activity monitor and see what files was related to it. I tried putting all the folders it listed to read only and locked, but it just made Safari uses up more of the physical RAM (i.e. after 4-5 tabs, my memory pressure would be in the RED) and it would start hiccuping.
Thanks for trying - clearly the same approach cannot be done with Safari.
In that case I’m waiting for Apple to fix it themselves. I’ve heard positive things about Big Sir 11.3 so maybe a fix is on the way.
You can actually buy a few 2230 M.2 SSDs (the size of M.2 that MS uses) from KIOXIA and Western Digital as a non-commerical customer, but they were clever enough to build the Surface that standard 2280 M.2 SSDs don't fit inside. If they would, you could just go and buy inexpensive off the shelf SSDs. I was about to applaud Microsoft for not soldering the SSD and make it replaceable, but this way it doesn't matter.
That Ryan Hileman Tweet from February 28th has previously been reproduced in this thread. Please note that Hileman has not mentioned the matter since then, and neither has the guy he quotes. A small puff of smoke does not mean there's a big fire.
Go to Maintenance tab > check everything other than:
- Spotlight Index (worth noting I don't use this and have it turned off in Settings)
- Mailboxes in Mail (again don't have lots of emails)
- Disk Positions on Desktop
For the Internet options, all are checked apart from:
- Bookmark icons
- Form values
- Instant messaging conversations
I'm at 3.38GB of Kernal and about 6GB total during standby with 40hours of uptime (very little usage maybe 20 mins of screen on)
So the SSD lasted for 600 TBW for a 16/512GB machine, implying a 2TB SSD should be able to take 4x that many writes, i.e. 2400 TBW.
I find that very encouraging for my M1 Mac mini 16GB/2TB and use case. So far in more than 2 months I have had 4.3 TBW according to the DriveDx app that also counts writes to external TB3 media AFAIK.
No reason for me to panic. Obviously for a use case that generates 600 TBW in 4 months that particular computer is not an appropriate choice.
Last edited:
I did an experiment by looking at how much disk read for Spotify web (Edge) vs. Spotify app
both are cacheing songs to the disk, the difference is that the web version will cache incrementally across the whole song e.g. 0.1mb 0.2mb...
whereas the app version will download/cache the whole song in the beginning, but again, both are cacheing to the disk, not the memory, and I have no idea if there's a setting to priortise cacheing to memory