On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Phillip Hellewell <[email protected]> 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. > I don't know of any techinical reason for this other than some people complaining that RAID does not pass down TRIM. The fact is TRIM support is not fully implemented anyway. I would have no problem RAIDing SSD and consider it safe practice like any disk that can fail (I'm pretty sure that is all of them). > > Don't bother with Atom. > > Any particular reason you would say this? > Atom is a corruption from Microsoft if you ask me. For no good reason they limit the ability of the processor like no virtualization extensions for 64-bit CPUs, only 2 GB of RAM, etc. It seems like Microsoft pressured Intel into creating the lower processors to push their lower end OSes, or was it the other away. I found a Lenovo ideapad S205 with AMD E-450 processor and it has been a very nice little netbook. I can run 64-bit VMs and have 4 GB of RAM. I don't miss the Atom netbook I had at all. I say spend the extra $20 and get a nice i-7 or i-5.
-------------------- 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
