Nicolas George composed on 2024-01-24 20:50 (UTC+0100):
> Felix Miata composed:
>> Technically, quite true. However, OS and user data are very different. User
>> data
>> recreation and/or restoration can be as painful as impossible, justifying
>> RAID. OS
>> can be reinstalled rather easily in a nominal amount of time. A 120G SSD can
>> hold
>> multiple OS installations quite easily. A spare 120G SSD costs less than a
>> petrol
>> fillup. I stopped putting OS on RAID when I got my first SSD. My current
>> primary
>> PC has 5 18G OS installations, all bootable much more quickly than finding a
>> suitable USB stick to rescue boot from.
> Looks you are confusing RAID with backups. Yes, OS can be reinstalled,
> but that still makes “a nominal amount of time” during which your
> computer is not available.
> Your “spare” SSD would be more usefully used in a RAID array than
> corroding on your shelves.
1: My spare SSD is part of my KISS configuration and backup protocols. Several
minutes or even hours of downtime don't bother me. Its (actually, their)
existence
enables (a) second PC virtual twin where upgrades and experiments are better
evaluated. I still have doubts about how much to trust SSD technology. Their
failure rate in less than 3 years since purchase here has been seriously
disappointing. 4 RMAs across 3 brands with a relative pittance of uptime each.
2: I only use MD RAID1 with a single rotating rust pair, currently 1T each. A
disposable 120M SSD wouldn't fit.
I like the concept of spares. :)
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata
