| 1 |
>>> Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from |
| 2 |
>>> stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right? |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is |
| 5 |
>> less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and |
| 6 |
>> totally resistant to a single HD failure. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This was Grant's original question - whether SSD / flash technology is more |
| 9 |
> reliable than RAID-1 of conventional disks? - and one to which no-one |
| 10 |
> appeared comfortable giving a categorical answer. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Stroller. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I've come up with a couple reasons to wait a bit longer to switch my |
| 15 |
important systems to SSD. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. SLC is faster and (more importantly) should last much longer than |
| 18 |
MLC. The Super Talent Ultradrive 32GB drives are priced ~$120 for MLC |
| 19 |
and ~$350 for SLC, so I'd like to wait for that SLC price to drop. |
| 20 |
It's worth mentioning though, that even conservative estimates of MLC |
| 21 |
lifetimes put them far beyond that of HD drives. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
2. SSD fIrmware is being updated relatively frequently right now |
| 24 |
(especially newer SSDs) and all data is lost during a firmware update. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm sold on SSDs as RAID1 replacements though. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
BTW, I read that Samsung manufactures the memory for all major brand |
| 29 |
SSDs (including Super Talent). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- Grant |
Archives