| 1 |
On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:20:53 -0700, Grant wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from |
| 5 |
>> stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure |
| 8 |
> rates is |
| 9 |
> less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven |
| 10 |
> technology and |
| 11 |
> totally resistant to a single HD failure. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This was Grant's original question - whether SSD / flash technology is |
| 14 |
more reliable than RAID-1 of conventional disks? - and one to which no- |
| 15 |
one appeared comfortable giving a categorical answer. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Stroller. |
Archives