>>>> 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. > > I've come up with a couple reasons to wait a bit longer to switch my > important systems to SSD. > > 1. SLC is faster and (more importantly) should last much longer than > MLC. The Super Talent Ultradrive 32GB drives are priced ~$120 for MLC > and ~$350 for SLC, so I'd like to wait for that SLC price to drop. > It's worth mentioning though, that even conservative estimates of MLC > lifetimes put them far beyond that of HD drives. > > 2. SSD fIrmware is being updated relatively frequently right now > (especially newer SSDs) and all data is lost during a firmware update. > > I'm sold on SSDs as RAID1 replacements though. > > BTW, I read that Samsung manufactures the memory for all major brand > SSDs (including Super Talent). > > - Grant
An interesting read here: http://blogs.gentoo.org/nightmorph/2009/08/02/ssds-and-filesystems - Grant
