Attention SSD users: if your temp directory isn't ram-backed, Duplicati will prematurely wear your SSD


This is not a “non issue.” I’ve read the techreport test.

" Developed by a this handy little app includes a dedicated endurance test that fills drives with files of varying sizes before deleting them and starting the process anew."

That is not how the vast majority use their laptop, desktop, or server hard drives, and just by total coincidence, it also happens to be the most favorable scenario for an SSD’s wear longevity.

  • The test is compressed over a very short period of time, so caches have maximum chance at absorbing re-writes
  • No already-written blocks are repeatedly re-written except for directory structure information
  • Re-writes are spread across a very large portion of the flash cells, and after every test cycle, the entire drive is freed for the wear-leveling algorithm to use again

Again: this scenario does not represent anyone’s real-world usage. I can think of two use cases that fit: videographers (many digital cinema cameras write directly to SATA or similar drive modules) and people using said devices as backup destinations by traditional backup programs (think Legato and the like) where the volume is written to, read for verification, then recycled by re-writing start to finish.

For most users, 50% to as much as 90% or more of the drive is filled with data and much of that does not change. If your drive is 90% full, unless it implements static wear leveling, its wear capacity is reduced tenfold because each write must result in a re-write in that 10% of available flash memory.

Note that I am assuming drives are not over-provisioned. This is partly because drive manufacturers do not generally advertise over-provisioning levels; I also don’t know how many SSDs actually implement static wear leveling; the industry similarly hides behind “we do wear leveling!” It’s probably safe to assume that most SATA and NVME SSDs implement at least dynamic wear leveling, but I would not be surprised if static wear leveling doesn’t exist except in the high-end desktop and enterprise drives.

Anyway. This is why Duplicati’s backup process causes so much wear (on a drive that doesn’t do static wear leveling): if you have a 500GB drive, and it’s got 450GB of data of which 300GB is backed up by Duplicati, that results in 6 wear cycles on that 10% of the drive. And if you have extra verify options turned on - every verification results in more writes as well because the verification streams the block to disk, not memory.

Worse, that 10% of the drive is absorbing the vast majority of re-writes due to user and system activity; logs, system updates, filesystem metadata, virtual memory (glares at Chrome), application caches, email clients, and so on.


Please re-read their testing methodology. Your bullet-points are inaccurate.

If you have 500GB drive with only 10% free space, you need to upgrade your drive or stop hoarding those cat pictures.
Anything that duplicati writes is no different than what OS or apps write. So if you perform your backups even twice a day - whoopy-freaking-do! You just created 2 extra writes on each cell involved in the backup. 2 extra writes out of dozens if not hundreds of thousands of writes each cell can handle.


It sounds to me like most of the examples so far COULD be considered edge cases depending on individual system setup / usage, but both are valid.

Regardless of whether or not SSD wear is an issue, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that performance could be improved.

Using a ram-disk (or adding a feature to do more processing in RAM when available) absolutely should improve performance and if it happens to ease wear on drives (both SSD and spinning rust) then that can be considered a bonus. :slight_smile:


“should” and “will” are not the same. Has anyone actually done any benchmarks to see how much of a performance difference ramdisk or bigger caching makes?


I think I saw some posts from users who set up ram-disks saying it sped things up, but I don’t know how they measured or what bottlenecks they had before.

I’ve never bothered to check myself as most of my backups run on always-on machines so I care more about reducing system impact than speeding things up.

Agreed - which is why I didn’t say “will”. :smiley:


Please re-read their testing methodology. Your bullet-points are inaccurate.

I did read their testing methodology. I even quoted their testing methodology and explained, at length, how it doesn’t represent the majority of end-user storage usage, how the test is an absolute best-case scenario, and specifically how it doesn’t apply to the scenario I’m describing - one which is extremely common.

The fact that they include 10GB of static data (a Windows install, an application or two, and a few movie files) in the test doesn’t really change anything. That’s still not anywhere near a typical user usage scenario, and it also has nothing to do with the scenario I described and based my post on.

Please stop derailing the conversation.