On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:22:19PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 16:07, Gary Kline<kl...@thought.org> wrote: > > > > For a small unit like this, SSD is really nice. > > > > But, for my workstations/servers, I'm wondering if a pure > > battery-backed RAM disk, in RAID1 with a regular hard drive, might be > > the real screamer. > > battery-backed ram sound great for the time being!
The downside is low capacity: 4-8 RAM modules, limiting these devices to 64GiB. And they consume more power than HDDs when idle! [http://techreport.com/articles.x/16255/11] > if not now [this minute], then relatively soon, i'm guessing > within a few years somebody will have a solid-state device that emulates > the current mechanical technology. it will wind up being considerably > faster than the current drives and suck Much less juice. Intel's X25 is already faster [http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/extreme/index.htm] and consumes less electricity than a HDD [http://techreport.com/articles.x/16255/11]. Of course RAM-based disks kick ass when writing files. [http://techreport.com/articles.x/16255/6] > oh yeah, and in a few years *every* computer will have a battery back up > --not just our laptops. after some N minutes everything will be saved. > much less lost data due to sudden power outtages. I don't think so. Not every part of the world suffers from regular power outages. And efficient batteries require rare raw materials like lithium, with demand far outstripping winnable reserves. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
Description: PGP signature