Because you keep talking as if you actually know what you are talking about!
Not in a RAID, the failure potential is exponential to the number of drives.
I don't know, why are you here causing trouble? You have added nothing to the discussion about SSDs, only spreading your biased opinion against them in an effort to persuade people into wasting money on a low-end RAID instead.
That is a false statement. All mechanical devices have a failure rate and having your data depend on the integrity of multiple mechanical drives increases that risk exponentially with every drive you add.
That is because there is physical electron movement in an SSD cell where a HD only changes polarity on the disk surface. The average SSD will long outlive the average computer's lifespan, even a mac. In a professional environment the computer will be replaced with a newer machine well before it starts to wear out. The bigger the SSD and the more free space available, the longer its lifespan. This is why Intel's SSDs are such odd capacities, they leave an amount of capacity unaddressable so the wear-leveling programming will always have free space to move data around.
HA! Delusion and lack of experience is all you have.
I agree, what you said was not true at all.
Yep, you are wrong again. What was that you were mumbling on about earlier? "Haven't you been reading along in the RAID discussions here? Or how about manufacturer data."
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. It should be listed in the specs somewhere. It is for Intel's X-25 models. So far, they all use either MLC or SLC flash. Which translates to ALL SSD's have both read and write limits. Read is just quite a bit higher with current models.
Are you sure? You are embarrassing yourself pretty badly. You still have ZERO experience with an SSD yet you still claim a RAID is better and you still know nothing.
I have yet to see you do anything of the sort.
Fortunately, its not.
Yep, remember that two years ago SSDs were little more than a $1000+ fantasy for most people? If manufacturers would stop using JMicron's junk controller, things would be far better sooner.
Still too expensive for the capacity yet, so most people will want to wait. I'd like to get them into a RAID, but is way out of my budget.
Nice links.
No PM is showing up. Try again maybe?
Well "best" would be a $5 part that increases performance 100x.
Worst or "one of the worst" would be $3,000 worth of storage that has the same relative speed advantage as a $300 solution and is only one sixth the size. Making it in total 600 times worse - or 600 times more silly.
If you require JBOD then I guess there's no other option but otherwise there's no rationale for SSD that I can see in a desktop machine. When 250 GB SSDs are $70 instead of $700 as they are now then I'll of course be forced to reconsider my position.
) Assuming that a hard drive has a 5% chance of failing within three years, a two-drive RAID 0 would have a 9.5% chance of failing within three years. Think of how that number would be with three or more drives! In a RAID 1 however, both drives would have to fail in order for the whole RAID to fail. Assuming the same thing, a two-drive RAID 1 would have a 0.25% chance of failing within three years. Given the modest performance boosts that you already gain with RAID 1, a RAID 01 would probably a better choice than just a RAID 0.I would think most would.
It all comes down to usage patterns, which includes needs to me.
Even less of a consideration if the same program is running for hours or even days. SSD would have an advantage for random access, but mechanical drives in RAID can easily exceed the sustained throughput, and certainly capacity of a single SSD.
