On 29/09/2021 15:25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 29/09/2021 13:17, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> I’d question whether it’s really relevant at the hobbyist level
>>> though. When you only have a handful of drives the average lifetimes
>>> aren’t as relevant as random variation and bad luck; performance and
>>> cost are likely to be more important.
>>
>> Are we just hobbyists? I use computers as part of my daily
>> activity. Its not a hobby. What I do with them is a hobby, sometimes,
>> but not the machines themselves. And when I need to check my
>> investments, that's not a hobby either, but I need a reliable computer
>> to do it.
>
> Matter of definitions ... my point is that for any given user there’s
> competing requirements (reliability, cost, performance, physical
> space...) and it’s not a given that reliability will trump the rest,
> especially given how fuzzy a question it is at small scale.
>
Fairy Nuff...

> My NUC ended up with a 4TB SSD because it only has room for one drive
> and I wanted to use it for bulk storage as well as compilation etc.
> Pricey but fitting everything into a single tiny computer means I get
> back office space for something else.

Ah well, yes...if you have a very small office.

I am more concerned with decluttering the home. No video recorders, DVD
players, CD players, VHF radios.

Screens and speakers are all that you can see. The rest is handled by
the network, and a lot of online storage. And a TV dongle in the server

So my physical CD and DVD storage is out of sight and completely unused

And instead of a NUC I have an old free ex WOC traded in pentium that
has to be 16 years old running three multi terabyte-sized disks

I don't do the sort of massive compilations that you do - I don't need
the speed

And it helps heat the office in winter.

I just looked, and it seems that SSD is around at around £120/TB, which
is pretty good.

so a 4TB SSD is about £450
Sadly a 4TB spinning rust is £<80

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 9/29/21 8:17 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 29/09/2021 05:58, SevenOverSix wrote:
>>> Face it though, in about 5 years SDDs will finally reach
>>> the capacity/$$$ and re-write durability of todays magnetics.
>>> This whole discussion becomes as moot as arguing whether
>>> punch-tape or mag-tape is "better".
>>
>> According to my power user friend, this has already occurred.. SSDS
>> now last longer than hard drives, so the extra cost is offset
>> completely by the rarer need to replace them.
>
> Dependent on model and usage pattern I would expect, although my
> personal experience is consistent: one SSD failure and more HDD failures
> than I can count since I started buying SSDs over a decade ago. (And the
> SSD was an OCZ...) All my in-use storage is now SSD except for backup
> drives.

The numbers disagree with the "better than" assertion.
The $$$/Tb figure still sucks and the rewrite endurance
just isn't nearly there yet.

SSD's are now GREAT for Granny's PC. However when it comes
to HARD WORKING servers and such, that perpetually index
and re-index, sort and re-sort, the endurance factor becomes
a serious thing. And yes, I expect the drives to outlast
the motherboards. The DATA is most important.

Five years - SDDs will be up to it unless Biden screws
it all to hell. But NOW ...

I just bought half a dozen WD-Gold 12tb drives for
a clients NAS. A quarter the price per TB as SSDs
and they'll LAST for the abovementioned five years.
The networking is the speed bottleneck anyway -
and it'll be a few years before they want to spring
for a 10+gb ethernet re-wire. *I* ain't gonna be
crawling through their ceilings again ......

On 30/09/2021 05:48, SevenOverSix wrote:
> it'll be a few years before they want to spring
> for a 10+gb ethernet re-wire. *I* ain't gonna be
> crawling through their ceilings again ......

LOL.

In a dark office data center to install a machine on 'our rack' we
lifted the floor in the *corridor*.

It was like 'alien' - cables burst out and attacked us!

We could have monitored any link and spliced in a bug in any of the
ethernet and indeed fibre cables.

People wonder why I am so chary of 'the cloud'. I know how they are built.

Our best security engineer was called upon to to a security audit on a
company. He duly spent a day or two probing their ports and firewalls,
and wandering around their server room and offices..as he left to write
his report, the IT manager said "Well, what is our weakest point, then?"

"The list of root passwords in the server room, is pretty good. I've
written them all down. And the list of user passwords above the
receptionists desk where the public can see them is not too dusty
either, but the best ones of all, are the modems attached to the DDI
phones and windows PCs of the salesmen so they can access the entire
network from home"

What use is 256 bit encryption when £20,000 will buy your clouds system
admin with the root access?

The academic versus the pragmatic.

Why NOT outsource your IT to India, where the system admin can be bought
for even less?

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 30/09/2021 06.48, SevenOverSix wrote:

> SSD's are now GREAT for Granny's PC. However when it comes
> to HARD WORKING servers and such, that perpetually index
> and re-index, sort and re-sort, the endurance factor becomes
> a serious thing. And yes, I expect the drives to outlast
> the motherboards. The DATA is most important

I would think that indexing huge databases or files when using SSD
should be rethought, because the access time is practically nil now,
while rewriting things has an impact.

I can not say what to change. I just suspect that it has to be
rethought, different strategies.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 29/09/2021 06.47, SevenOverSix wrote:
....
> The Seagate Exos 2X14 14TB drive has dual actuators.  It presents itself
> as a pair of 7TB drives.  The "2" before the X in the name is indicative
> of the dual actuator technology, which Seagate calls "Mach.2".  (There's
> also a plain "X14" single-actuator drive in their line-up.  Don't mix
> them up!)
>
>   Yea ... but it's SEAGATE  :-)
>
>   Haven't bought one of THOSE in a decade, for good reason.

And what do you buy instead? :-?
>
>   In about five years, SSD tech will come to match magnetics
>   in capacity/$$$ and re-write endurance. At this point this
>   discussion will become irrelevant.

Possibly.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> On 30/09/2021 06.48, SevenOverSix wrote:

>> SSD's are now GREAT for Granny's PC. However when it comes
>> to HARD WORKING servers and such, that perpetually index
>> and re-index, sort and re-sort, the endurance factor becomes
>> a serious thing. And yes, I expect the drives to outlast
>> the motherboards. The DATA is most important
>
> I would think that indexing huge databases or files when using SSD
> should be rethought, because the access time is practically nil now,
> while rewriting things has an impact.
>
> I can not say what to change. I just suspect that it has to be
> rethought, different strategies.

My partner’s employer deals with petabytes of data. I gather that the
data itself is largely on hard disks but metadata mostly lives on NVMe
SSD.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 02/10/2021 17.42, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 30/09/2021 06.48, SevenOverSix wrote:
>
>>> SSD's are now GREAT for Granny's PC. However when it comes
>>> to HARD WORKING servers and such, that perpetually index
>>> and re-index, sort and re-sort, the endurance factor becomes
>>> a serious thing. And yes, I expect the drives to outlast
>>> the motherboards. The DATA is most important
>>
>> I would think that indexing huge databases or files when using SSD
>> should be rethought, because the access time is practically nil now,
>> while rewriting things has an impact.
>>
>> I can not say what to change. I just suspect that it has to be
>> rethought, different strategies.
>
> My partner’s employer deals with petabytes of data. I gather that the
> data itself is largely on hard disks but metadata mostly lives on NVMe
> SSD.

Interesting combination, yes.

With some filesystems in Linux (I think XFS, not sure) you can put the
filesystem metadata in one partition (probably on a different disk too)
and the data in another. However, a failure in either kills both.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:16:55 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Just because Outlook[1] vict^H^H^H^Husers succumb to its pressure to
>> top-post doesn't make it a Good Thing.
>
> At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
> above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do. This is because there
> is no list and so the entire thread has to be in every message so that if
> someone else is added to the discussion they get the entire context. It
> just means that when one of these monsters lands in the inbox you have to
> start reading from the bottom, but at least by the time you get to the top
> you know what they're on about.
>
>> [1] Properly pronounced "Look out!"
>
> or "Out House".

That's the one I've always used. Outhouse Express is then for people
with diarrhea.

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 02:06:45 -0400
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 03:35:28 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 21:02:38 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Easily resolved if outlook would simply position the cursor at the
>>>>> point of the new reply rather than at the start of the message when
>>>>> reading new messages.
>>>>
>>>> You have missed the point - in this context you want the
>>>> replies to be at the top and you want a complete copy of the entire
>>>> thread. Interleaved replies and snipping in that context is completely
>>>> wrong it destroys essential information.
>>>
>>> This is IMO okay in business environments. But not in the usenet.
>>
>> Of course. My point was that Outlook is designed for business
>> environments not for USENET.
>>
>
> Oh, it was *designed*?

I think it's actually the result of much work by a series of dung
beetles. :-)

I was forced to use it at a couple of workplaces. It was astonishing how
bad it was, given that Microsoft had been developing it (polishing a
turd?) for so many years. Of course, as of 2017 it still had major bugs
that had been reported to MS at least as far back as 2000. (Somewhere I
have the bug reports, but it's not worth looking for them at this
point.) Either MS doesn't know how to fix bugs, or more likely they just
don't care.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On 24 Sep 2021 21:05:57 GMT
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/2021 in message
>> <20210924190832.0e313ded01553756081c757e@eircom.net> Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> wrote:
>>
>> >At work (the environment Outlook was designed for) top posting
>> >above a full quote is exactly the right thing to do.
>>
>> That's email, not Usenet posts. When you had to have some technical
>
> Correct, more to the point it is direct email not mailing list
> email.
>
>> knowledge to use a computer nobody top posted - email or Usenet - in fact
>
> Mailing list or USENET correct. My point was that Outlook is not
> designed for mailing lists or USENET it is designed for direct email in a
> corporate setting where top posting and full quotes are appropriate in
> complete contrast to USENET and mailing lists where they are not.

They're not appropriate for replying via e-mail to various ticketing
systems either. I run into this with clients a lot.

I think that, for business use, it would be better to put e-mail
messages into some sort of central database and allow people to access
previous replies in a conversation there (what a novel idea!), rather
than having e-mail messages accrete into thousand-pagers where your
fingers go numb if you try to scroll back to a reply near the beginning.

Exchange uses some sort of database for its mailstore. Too bad they
don't encourage its use instead of just vomiting the entire contents of
a conversation thread into each and every reply.

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

> In comp.os.linux.misc, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> However, a friend has a car that offers a great work-around -
>> switchable compression in the stereo system. That way you can
>> hear everything on the road, but if you're parked somewhere and
>> have no background noise to worry about, you can switch off the
>> compression and hear the recording in all its glory.
>
> That sort of feature is what I meant by "better car stereos". I'm not an
> audio guy and will be quite imprecise on such matters.

"Car stereo" is pretty much an oxymoron, unless you have one of those
cars with the driver's seating position in the center. :-)

>
> (Quoting me)
>
>>> Vinyl also has the quirk that outer edge tracks have better quality than
>>> center tracks. Most other media doesn't suffer that restriction.
>> Sounds like the different zones on a hard disk...
>
> Back to vintage computer reminiscence: I can remember when "where to put
> your swap partition?" was one of those zones discussion points.
>

Years ago I sat there while everyone in the computer club meeting I was
attending argued about SCSI vs. ESDI. A friend and I walked out and went
to get a beer instead of listening to any more.

I'm sure that there were meetings where everyone argued about where to
put swap partitions too. I thankfully don't remember if that happened or
not.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 08:57:49 -0400
Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I think that, for business use, it would be better to put e-mail
> messages into some sort of central database and allow people to access
> previous replies in a conversation there (what a novel idea!), rather
> than having e-mail messages accrete into thousand-pagers where your
> fingers go numb if you try to scroll back to a reply near the beginning.

The only catch with that is that for business purposes you need
circulation control - at least some people think so and they may be right.

OTOH in the last couple of years with everybody working from home
Slack threads have tended to replace email for a lot of things and they do
work that way - it's a pity that the database belongs to another company
but hey B2B is all the rage these days.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

> On 24/09/2021 06.16, SevenOverSix wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>   So if you've got a dual+ boot setup, put your crappy Winders
>>   stuff at the bottom and your Linux in the middle. Put your
>>   swap partition right next to your system partition.
>>
>>   SDDs, irrelevant - but they cost WAY too much per TB and
>>   have miserable re-write endurance at present. Great for
>>   "home PCs/laptops" but NOT for hard-working servers.
>>   Some DO set up their systems on a SDD and then go through
>>   all the trouble to shift the data and such off to magnetics.
>>   You can also RAID 1/5/6 SDDs so WHEN they burn out you can swap
>>   in new ones without losing anything (if you don't wait too long).
>>   Of course whatever your box is, NETWORK speed is the bottleneck
>>   in getting said data out to the users. Even 10/g can be
>>   "slow" in some circumstances.
>
> No, SSD are quite durable nowdays (of course, with limits), and they are
> indeed used in servers, when speed is important.

"7/6" must not have any modern experience with servers or
datacenters. I don't claim to have worked at cutting edge places, but
one had some SSDs in EMC storage arrays 8 or 9 years ago, and another had
all-flash arrays about 6 years ago. I don't know why anyone would claim
in 2021 that SSDs aren't suitable for servers, unless they've been out
of IT for a long time.

I'm not actually doing much with hardware in IT these days, but I do
keep up on some things. There's a web site called ServeTheHome that I
follow and that's about as close as I get to thinking about enterprise
hardware these days. :-) https://www.servethehome.com/

Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> writes:

> On 24.09.2021 at 23:08, Carlos E. R. scribbled:
>
>> On 24/09/2021 19.16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>> > I never saw a drive with multiple actuators, although I
>> > wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed. I did hear
>> > about drives that had fixed heads mounted on a few tracks
>> > for rapid access.
>>
>> Me, I don't understand why modern disks don't have multiple actuators.
>> It would reduce the access time and increase i/o.
>
> I have recently read about a new hard disk design from one of the usual
> manufacturers that had dual actuators.

https://www.servethehome.com/seagate-exos-2x14-mach-2-500mbps-hard-drive-launched/

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

> On 29/09/2021 06.47, SevenOverSix wrote:
> ...
>> The Seagate Exos 2X14 14TB drive has dual actuators.  It presents itself
>> as a pair of 7TB drives.  The "2" before the X in the name is indicative
>> of the dual actuator technology, which Seagate calls "Mach.2".  (There's
>> also a plain "X14" single-actuator drive in their line-up.  Don't mix
>> them up!)
>>
>>   Yea ... but it's SEAGATE  :-)
>>
>>   Haven't bought one of THOSE in a decade, for good reason.
>
> And what do you buy instead? :-?

At one point I avoided Western Digital and bought Seagate. Then I
avoided both and bought Hitachi. Then Toshiba bought them and I was
buying Toshiba drives. Now I'm hearing that maybe Western Digital is a
good bet.

>>
>>   In about five years, SSD tech will come to match magnetics
>>   in capacity/$$$ and re-write endurance. At this point this
>>   discussion will become irrelevant.
>
> Possibly.

I rather doubt it. In order to get high capacity and reasonable pricing,
NAND flash has to go to smaller sizes on chip. Those smaller cells or
the move from SLC -> MLC -> TLC -> QLC means that durability worsens and
so does reliability.

I don't think that NAND flash as we know it will be the way forward. We
need some other technology instead.

I could be wrong though. Most people didn't think that we'd have such
small processes for CPUs either. Many people didn't think that the x86
or Windows would survive as long as they have. History does not always
unfold as we think it will.

To be honest, I didn't think I'd be using the computer I'm using right
now. Soldered-in RAM and SSD? ARM? A Mac? An Apple product? 3-4 years
ago I'd have said you were mad if you suggested I'd be using Apple
products. A couple of years ago I'd have laughed if you said I'd buy a
computer with soldered-in RAM and SSD.

I had a couple of Psion organizers years ago, so I had ARM. I just
didn't think it would ever move beyond handhelds. Boy was I wrong. :-)

I haven't yet worked with ARM-based servers or ARM-based cloud servers,
but I would no longer be surprised if I do in the near future.

On 04/10/2021 13:44, Bud Frede wrote:
> Either MS doesn't know how to fix bugs, or more likely they just
> don't care.
Designed to sell, but not to work

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 2021-10-04, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> point.) Either MS doesn't know how to fix bugs, or more likely they just
> don't care.

They are paying low cost programmers, and save on engineers because
they are gready...
>
>
>

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
to weak you should be meek, and you should brainfuck stronger
https://github.com/rofl0r/chaos-pp

On 04/10/2021 16:27, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> On 2021-10-04, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> point.) Either MS doesn't know how to fix bugs, or more likely they just
>> don't care.
>
> They are paying low cost programmers, and save on engineers because
> they are gready...

Every businessman knows that what sells product is marketing, not
engineering.

--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 08:57:49 -0400
> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that, for business use, it would be better to put e-mail
>> messages into some sort of central database and allow people to access
>> previous replies in a conversation there (what a novel idea!), rather
>> than having e-mail messages accrete into thousand-pagers where your
>> fingers go numb if you try to scroll back to a reply near the beginning.
>
> The only catch with that is that for business purposes you need
> circulation control - at least some people think so and they may be right.

They should be able to build that kind of thing into Exchange I would
think. It could keep track of a thread, who's permitted to get the
messages, who has read the messages, etc. It could then keep everything
all in order for however long regulatory or other policies require.

>
> OTOH in the last couple of years with everybody working from home
> Slack threads have tended to replace email for a lot of things and they do
> work that way - it's a pity that the database belongs to another company
> but hey B2B is all the rage these days.

I pushed for Hipchat instead of Slack because they let you run a local
instance and keep your data more under your own control. I was outvoted,
and now Hipchat is dead AFAIK anyway.

I mentioned ejabberd too, and was practically shouted out of the room. I
just thought that we'd have the code for it, it was all well-documented,
and we could do what we wanted with it.

Oh well.

On 10/4/21 9:51 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 29/09/2021 06.47, SevenOverSix wrote:
>> ...
>>> The Seagate Exos 2X14 14TB drive has dual actuators.  It presents itself
>>> as a pair of 7TB drives.  The "2" before the X in the name is indicative
>>> of the dual actuator technology, which Seagate calls "Mach.2".  (There's
>>> also a plain "X14" single-actuator drive in their line-up.  Don't mix
>>> them up!)
>>>
>>>   Yea ... but it's SEAGATE  :-)
>>>
>>>   Haven't bought one of THOSE in a decade, for good reason.
>>
>> And what do you buy instead? :-?
>
> At one point I avoided Western Digital and bought Seagate. Then I
> avoided both and bought Hitachi. Then Toshiba bought them and I was
> buying Toshiba drives. Now I'm hearing that maybe Western Digital is a
> good bet.

Well ..... "best bet".

There's a site somewhere that runs mass quantities of
servers - and they compared the various kinds of disks
for longevity.

HGST was the huge winner.

But now WD has bought them out.

The EARLY WD-Golds had HGST serial numbers, but
I'm not so sure about the more recent ones.

Anyway, I was off Seagates a decade ago. If a box
came with one, I'd literally toss it (after magnet
salvage).

Haitachi's were also very good. Dunno if they still
make any.

So, insofar as magnetics, WD-Gold seems to be your
best bet today. I did have one die after only about
three months (and it was a sneaky failure) but only
the one.

Insofar as SSD's I'd recommend Samsung Pro series.

Yer problems are multi-terabyte applications and
apps that "churn" a lot.

This ain't the old days. Lots of places now have
25-30 YEARS worth of files they don't dare delete
because they MIGHT be important - but nobody is
100% sure. So, it accumulates and HAS to be dealt with.

I've got a place, kinda early into computers, that has
a solid 12tb to cope with. It's only about 40 employees.
Due to law and paranoia, they keep EVERYTHING. Old
databases going back to the mid 80s, LOTUS 123 spread
sheets ... tons of word processor files in WordStar
and FinalWord and DOS WordPerfect, Peachtree and QB
accounting systems, AREV and FileMaker 5 DBs, photos,
PDFs out the ass ... the LOT. It has to be kept available,
it has to be backed-up, it has to be safe.

Got 'em set up on a Sinology with RAID-6/18tb ... AND
a kinda expensive cloud storage deal. Moved some of the
old DOS DBs stuff over to MySQL. Still it's about 12tb
and, because a lot of it is binary, another 12tb to back
it up on-site. This is the need. In a few years it'll be
about 20tb. PRICE that in SSDs. Magnetic is about 25%
of the cost. Speed is kinda secondary. VOLUME rules.

Oh, and 'cloud' storage - the companies can go out of
business tomorrow, so it's no panacea.

It's TYPICAL - employees come and go and NOBODY will
take responsibility for what's "important" or not.

This is 40 people. Now imagine an org with 100, or 500,
or 1500 ...

>>>
>>>   In about five years, SSD tech will come to match magnetics
>>>   in capacity/$$$ and re-write endurance. At this point this
>>>   discussion will become irrelevant.
>>l
>> Possibly.

On 10/4/21 9:06 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> However, a friend has a car that offers a great work-around -
>>> switchable compression in the stereo system. That way you can
>>> hear everything on the road, but if you're parked somewhere and
>>> have no background noise to worry about, you can switch off the
>>> compression and hear the recording in all its glory.
>>
>> That sort of feature is what I meant by "better car stereos". I'm not an
>> audio guy and will be quite imprecise on such matters.
>
> "Car stereo" is pretty much an oxymoron, unless you have one of those
> cars with the driver's seating position in the center. :-)
>
>
>>
>> (Quoting me)
>>
>>>> Vinyl also has the quirk that outer edge tracks have better quality than
>>>> center tracks. Most other media doesn't suffer that restriction.
>>> Sounds like the different zones on a hard disk...
>>
>> Back to vintage computer reminiscence: I can remember when "where to put
>> your swap partition?" was one of those zones discussion points.
>>
>
> Years ago I sat there while everyone in the computer club meeting I was
> attending argued about SCSI vs. ESDI. A friend and I walked out and went
> to get a beer instead of listening to any more.
>
> I'm sure that there were meetings where everyone argued about where to
> put swap partitions too. I thankfully don't remember if that happened or
> not.
On a magnetic disk, put it close to your system partition. Keeps
the head movement to a minimum.

Modern SSD, doesn't matter.