On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:20:53 -0700, Grant wrote:
Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
SSDs are still relatively new technology, so predicting failure
rates is
less reliable. What's wrong with using RAID-1? It's proven
technology and
totally resistant to a single HD failure.
This was Grant's original question - whether SSD / flash technology is
more reliable than RAID-1 of conventional disks? - and one to which no-
one appeared comfortable giving a categorical answer.
Stroller.
