From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-98315-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1MWU5O-000688-G9
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:46:14 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E14F9E015B;
Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AE5E015B
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,294,1246834800";
d="scan'208";a="115539568"
Received: from unknown (HELO compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org) ([213.152.39.90])
by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2009 12:46:12 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.71] (unknown [192.168.1.71])
by compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B7A137CEA
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:46:09 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <19E6DC08-A507-4F9C-A6E8-1C48B2C981A0@stellar.eclipse.co.uk>
From: Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <49bf44f10907290820k1bbf0ebct8ca7becceda19771@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} SSD instead of RAID1?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:46:07 +0100
References: <49bf44f10907260346y62a6f95dyfda763fceb0bcb39@mail.gmail.com> <DC239B41-96A3-45F2-B85C-62140E346B43@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <49bf44f10907270544i5a5922ddo28d6a2c23d7ed6a8@mail.gmail.com> <4A6DE730.90103@f_philipp.fastmail.net> <49bf44f10907281052l184efbacvffd7fa1344ddbd2e@mail.gmail.com> <C20F6FFC-5600-4BF6-BF12-01E793709215@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <49bf44f10907290820k1bbf0ebct8ca7becceda19771@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-Archives-Salt: ce3c6c4f-4c07-4729-aa63-71504005acbf
X-Archives-Hash: 7bdd068f907649809eb5fd8c48d8e1b2
On 29 Jul 2009, at 16:20, Grant wrote:
> ...
> Anyway, the point of all this is to prevent an HD failure from
> stopping the system. An SSD is much safer, right?
As I told you before, I used RAID-1 of two conventional olde spinning-
platter hard-drives, using a hardware-RAID SATA controller. An
additional drive can be standing by as a "hot-spare" or RAID6 can be
used (on newer controllers) which resists failure of 2 drives per array.
Why would I mention this if flash memory is as "obviously" much safer
as your above statement seems to imply?
Stroller.