>> 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
