On 01/07/2013 09:56 PM, Phillip Hellewell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:06:30AM -0700, Michael Torrie wrote: >> Unless you want to spend significant cash, I don't see any reason to go >> with SSD, frankly. The affordable ones have extremely high failure >> rates from the reviews I've read. And they often fail suddenly and >> spectacularly, with no warning. At least the ones you see advertised on >> newegg (OCZ, etc). > > Hmm, this really worries me. I can't afford to have my server die > suddenly and unexpectedly. And I've heard you're "not supposed to" use > RAID with SSDs. Maybe SSD is a better choice with laptops than servers.
Well all disks can die, sometimes unexpectedly. What do you mean when you say you "can't afford to have [your] server die?" As they say, "failure is always an option." Whichever choice you choose, you need a failure strategy. With spinning disks, you can do a RAID-1 plus a good backup. With SSD, if RAID isn't an option, then a good backup and a restore strategy. In any case, expect some downtime. >> Don't bother with Atom. > > Any particular reason you would say this? Well, just that the benefits aren't that great. Since you're not trying to run a huge cluster and worry about heat generation and power usage, you might want a chip that has more utility for your needs. Occasionally you might find yourself wanting to do a video encode, or run a few virtual machines. In those situations the Atom is anemic (heck the Atom cannot even do HD video decode without help). -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
