cool_hw

I did a quick search earlier and it seems these are informational only and not necessarily persistent warnings. Some discussion suggested that some unsupported requests to the disk can result in these, but I don't know for sure.

-------

    vim/vim is licensed under the Vim License

    There are no restrictions on using or distributing an unmodified copy of the software. Parts of the software may also be distributed, but the license text must always be included. For modified versions a few restrictions apply. The license is GPL compatible, you may compile the software with GPL libraries and distribute it.

-------

Source, if anyone wants to dig deeper: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/vim-license.txt

Unsure why I'm being downvoted but okay.

fzf.vim works better, in my subjective opinion, but I haven't configured telescope a lot.

Treesitter integration is a bit easier in neovim IMHO (but I haven't tried to make it work with vim too much.)

Newer plugin development seems to be much more on the nvim side than vim as well. (Although I do feel fzf is superior to telescope, at least out of the box.)

I'm happy neovim exists, it rekindled vim development.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the bus factor 1 on vim?

This is exactly the kind of comparison that prompted me to post this topic. I suppose macOS just uses the SSD far more.

How does your workload look?

Thanks.

Thanks for sharing, is this a 1TB drive?

Going by the percentage used, looks like an expected lifespan of 1200TBW.

Power On Hours seem to indicate the disk has been on for a good chunk of time, so I would think you're doing fine. Percentage used says 6%, so that seems decent too.

What model SSD is this?

I think most folks will.

What is your RAM/SSD config?

This is why I asked here. Most folks don't seem to mind it, but it is an order of magnitude, if not more, higher disk usage than linux.

Is there a noticeable difference in battery life usage with option 1?

I think that's because `power on` hours is talking about the disk being in the power on state, not the rest of the machine.

Wow, that's a well used machine!

> Addendum. I just wrote 1.7GB in the last 30mins while reading HN on Firefox, and a few other web pages.

Thanks for sharing this. I need to see if linux does this.

Is there a way to look up that error log?

Perhaps one day when Apple prices the RAM upgrades reasonably..

Thank you for the data point, and your usage on an M1 will probably yield crazier numbers. This is why I asked, Apple silicon machines look like they're using the disk far more than older macs.

I noticed that on my linux machine the available spare threshold number is 10% too.

Thank you for posting, this (and the sibling posts and some google searching) confirms to me that older macs were not using disks this much for the same tasks.

I still may be wrong about this, but I am yet to see a counterpoint from Apple Silicon machines.

Indeed, I intended to say letting it get to standby. :)

Thank you, this is useful. I think I'm going to try the memory only option. Your Read/Writes seem lower than others (still pretty high, but much better than other Apple Silicon)

I'm doing none of that on this machine yet.

In generak, it can reach it easily on a dev machine, but it seems like the norm. And my linux experience is at 1/5th or 1/10th the amount of data read/write tha comparable tasks.

Looking at this thread, it seems this is the way with macOS.

> 1.31 PB

Wow, that's a large number.

The two relatively lower posts I've seen here are both higher RAM, 32GB and 64GB. I wonder there's anything to read into this.

Wow. What kinda operations are you performing? It's at an indicated 15% of its life in 3 months! (I understand that it can go past 100%)

Going by some reply to this post, looks like it.

I'm not sure but I wonder if it happens when you do the macos install / recovery mode where it does repeated reboots.

I'm not sure, but you may be right. In either case, going by the results here, it seems this is expected usage. That is quite something, especially comparing it to linux. No idea how windows plays into this.

That is pretty crazy, going by that, (and I know this isn't how it works), you have a projected total use of 5.5 years.

Due to the onboard SSD, the machine will be dead.