Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?

[Grant]

>> Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD?  It sounds
>> like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives
>> are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need
>> an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc.
>
> I assumed that you're looking at £100 or more for an SSD, as opposed to <
> £10 for a CF card. I didn't check those prices, however.
>
> Are SSDs really *that* much better than CF cards in terms of write cycles?
> (i.e. swap)
> How much swap are you actually using?
>
> If the box is just a NAS, then I can't see the speed of the system drive is
> an issue *at all*.

They're actually workstations so I don't think I should neglect the
performance aspect.  Should this scheme keep the system running if the
HD fails?

/ SSD
/boot SSD
/home HD
swap HD

> Stroller.
>
>
> EDIT: I just checked & a 32gig SATA SSD is £75 including VAT here. The
> headline price is £66, and if it wasn't for the sales tax I'd just about
> consider that much for the convenience. An 8gig CF card is £8, and that's
> perfectly ample space for a headless server. FWIW I went for hardware RAID -
> secondhand 3ware 9500S - & conventional SATA hard-drives.

How much is the CF adapter?  That would narrow the gap, although maybe
not considering a 2.5" -> 3.5" adapter.

Yeah, it looks like ~$80 for a 16GB Super Talent drive.  This one for
~$120 is 32GB and is said to have no stuttering (apparently because of
its internal Indilinx controller):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609392

Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system.  An SSD is much safer, right?

- Grant