| 1 |
Grant schrieb: |
| 2 |
>>> Is cost-savings the advantage of using CF instead of SSD? It sounds |
| 3 |
>>> like it might be wiser to spend a little more (low capacity SSD drives |
| 4 |
>>> are pretty cheap now) and have a real storage device that doesn't need |
| 5 |
>>> an adapter and is much faster, can swap, etc. |
| 6 |
>> I assumed that you're looking at £100 or more for an SSD, as opposed to < |
| 7 |
>> £10 for a CF card. I didn't check those prices, however. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Are SSDs really *that* much better than CF cards in terms of write cycles? |
| 10 |
>> (i.e. swap) |
| 11 |
>> How much swap are you actually using? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If the box is just a NAS, then I can't see the speed of the system drive is |
| 14 |
>> an issue *at all*. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> They're actually workstations so I don't think I should neglect the |
| 17 |
> performance aspect. Should this scheme keep the system running if the |
| 18 |
> HD fails? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> / SSD |
| 21 |
> /boot SSD |
| 22 |
> /home HD |
| 23 |
> swap HD |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
No. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, you can't put swap on |
| 27 |
the HD. It would certainly crash the system when the disk fails. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Better make sure that these systems have that much RAM that they don't |
| 30 |
need a swap-partition. Alternatively, buy a decent SSD, not a cheap one, |
| 31 |
and swap on that. |
Archives