I agree except when you want the mirroring of Raid5. On SSDs (if only used for the OS) Raid0 makes no sense at all because it does not improve the access time by one iota. That will be different once we can afford large SSDs for massive files.
I remember one case though were Raid0 on the SSD seemed to make sense. The OP bought two 30GB SSDs in lieu of one 60GB SSD because the two were cheaper. Then he threw them together with Raid0.
I love RAID5, and have it running on several servers at work, and one at home. I think RAID5 certainly has it's place...my main and only beef is with RAID0. I understand the point between turning two cheap 30 GB SSDs into one 60 GB, but now your data is twice at risk, and given the unreliability of SSDs...that would scare me.
Deacon, from where do you get that idea? In over one year I never had a problem - neither with OCZ nor with Intel. And in any case, imaging is your friend.and given the unreliability of SSDs
Just because you have one that has lasted a year, doesn't mean everyone has the same experience. It should go without saying that one person's experience doesn't make for the entire industry. The knock from the very beginning on SSDs was that they are unreliable and have a finite amount of reads/writes. Have they improved...sure, but not to the level of mechanical drives as of yet.
I'm open to discussion, but I'm also battle-scarred from so many forums in which a person disputes an industry-held belief using only their lone individual experience. The knock against an SSD has always been that they are not yet as reliable as mechanical drives. You seemed surprised by this, like I was pulling information out of my rectum. If I wanted to go solely on personal experience, I bought 10 SSDs for work laptops, and 4 of them failed within the first week of usage. But I don't ever argue or debate on personal experiences, because mine may or may not be typical of what everyone else sees.
I understand what you are saying. Personal experience is not a statistical average. But I am following the SSD scence very closely (since about 2 years) and I have not seen any such complaints in recent times.
I don't know how many SSDs you have installed, but the three I have (and I am just buying a 4th) have never given me any trouble - but maybe that proves nothing.
I wish I could say the same, personally speaking, but most of the write-ups I've read comparing SSD vs HDD specifically mention the reliability issues, and the finite lifecycle of them.
The one I am using personally in my laptop that you helped my get working is running like a champ. That's what led me to upgrade 10 of my company's laptops. I looked a bit foolish when 4 of the 10 died that quickly.
There is a lot of hype about the lifetime cycle. But then, how long do you keep these devices. I think they will hold up for 3 or 4 years after that it is anyhow time to buy somthing new. For now I have seen more people with failing HDDs than SSDs. But that may be because they are so recent and have fewer users.
There are still a lot of variables to consider. I don't think we'll know for another two years or so which type drive is truly the most reliable. I've had HDDs fail in these laptops, so it will be telling to see how SSDs fair in the same systems, getting used the same, with the same power on/off cycles.
Quote