1 |
>> ... What if I bought a low-price/low-capacity SSD drive for each |
2 |
>> of these systems, installed the system essentials on them, and used my |
3 |
>> existing high-capacity HD drives for data storage? Would each system |
4 |
>> keep running if the HDs died? If so, I think that would offer as good |
5 |
>> or better system reliability than RAID1. What do you think? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> You don't need to buy SSD "drives" - instead you could use CF cards and a |
8 |
> cheap adaptor. These are commensurate in capacity & cost with USB flash |
9 |
> drives (4gig, maybe 16gig?), but CF cards "talk EIDE" and you can get cheap |
10 |
> pin-convertors allowing you to connect them to EIDE cables and treat them |
11 |
> like a hard-drive. |
12 |
|
13 |
Aren't CF cards much slower than SSD drives and HD drives? |
14 |
|
15 |
> I know of these used in Asterisk based PABX systems & PoS tills with the |
16 |
> expectation that they're more reliable than disks, and have read statements |
17 |
> by people deploying quantities of such machines that they've never had a |
18 |
> failure in years of use. |
19 |
|
20 |
I like the sound of that. |
21 |
|
22 |
> I don't know how that really compares to RAID 1 - if you use hardware RAID |
23 |
> (and you can get hardware SATA controllers for £50 these days) then you can |
24 |
> assign a hot-spare, and hot-swap a replacement drive with zero downtime. |
25 |
> With hardware RAID you can still boot if one of the drives fails, but you do |
26 |
> add the controller as a potential point-of-failure. |
27 |
|
28 |
Would the system keeping running if I used a CF or SSD for the system |
29 |
install and the HD drive died? |
30 |
|
31 |
- Grant |