>>> 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
