1 |
>>>> Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from |
2 |
>>>> stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right? |
3 |
>>> |
4 |
>>> SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure rates is |
5 |
>>> less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven technology and |
6 |
>>> totally resistant to a single HD failure. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> This was Grant's original question - whether SSD / flash technology is more |
9 |
>> reliable than RAID-1 of conventional disks? - and one to which no-one |
10 |
>> appeared comfortable giving a categorical answer. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Stroller. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I've come up with a couple reasons to wait a bit longer to switch my |
15 |
> important systems to SSD. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> 1. SLC is faster and (more importantly) should last much longer than |
18 |
> MLC. The Super Talent Ultradrive 32GB drives are priced ~$120 for MLC |
19 |
> and ~$350 for SLC, so I'd like to wait for that SLC price to drop. |
20 |
> It's worth mentioning though, that even conservative estimates of MLC |
21 |
> lifetimes put them far beyond that of HD drives. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> 2. SSD fIrmware is being updated relatively frequently right now |
24 |
> (especially newer SSDs) and all data is lost during a firmware update. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I'm sold on SSDs as RAID1 replacements though. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> BTW, I read that Samsung manufactures the memory for all major brand |
29 |
> SSDs (including Super Talent). |
30 |
> |
31 |
> - Grant |
32 |
|
33 |
An interesting read here: |
34 |
|
35 |
http://blogs.gentoo.org/nightmorph/2009/08/02/ssds-and-filesystems |
36 |
|
37 |
- Grant |