| 1 |
On 26 Jul 2009, at 11:46, Grant wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... What if I bought a low-price/low-capacity SSD drive for each |
| 3 |
> of these systems, installed the system essentials on them, and used my |
| 4 |
> existing high-capacity HD drives for data storage? Would each system |
| 5 |
> keep running if the HDs died? If so, I think that would offer as good |
| 6 |
> or better system reliability than RAID1. What do you think? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
You don't need to buy SSD "drives" - instead you could use CF cards |
| 9 |
and a cheap adaptor. These are commensurate in capacity & cost with |
| 10 |
USB flash drives (4gig, maybe 16gig?), but CF cards "talk EIDE" and |
| 11 |
you can get cheap pin-convertors allowing you to connect them to EIDE |
| 12 |
cables and treat them like a hard-drive. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I know of these used in Asterisk based PABX systems & PoS tills with |
| 15 |
the expectation that they're more reliable than disks, and have read |
| 16 |
statements by people deploying quantities of such machines that |
| 17 |
they've never had a failure in years of use. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't know how that really compares to RAID 1 - if you use hardware |
| 20 |
RAID (and you can get hardware SATA controllers for £50 these days) |
| 21 |
then you can assign a hot-spare, and hot-swap a replacement drive with |
| 22 |
zero downtime. With hardware RAID you can still boot if one of the |
| 23 |
drives fails, but you do add the controller as a potential point-of- |
| 24 |
failure. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Stroller. |
Archives