Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • Can you give sources for your first statement? About the second, it isn't as if the SSD isn't the bottleneck (because they will fail faster than HDD's). The risk is always there. Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 17:17
  • I'm sure I could find sources via Bing/Google... but I've been 'doing' PCs since, well, before PCs.
    – Don Nickel
    Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 18:34
  • Well, RAID arrays are quite recent things... and SSD are even more recent. Technical expertise aside, I think it would help the community if you could check your statements. Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 18:38
  • Sorry, I hit enter before I had finished my comment. As of a couple years ago, SSDs were considered MORE reliable than HDDs - not less as Dortoro claims. Technology is always changing, and that might not be the case, but I haven't heard that. Here is an article about this from Tom's Hardware: tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html
    – Don Nickel
    Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 18:51
  • Actually the article isn't saying that. To sum it up, both HDD and SSD display similar times, the study being aggravated by the fact that, at the time, SSD were only used for 2 years. The projections they make in the neat graph at the end fail from the same problem, they extrapolate as linear when the HDD reference is exponential. Not to mention the entrepreneurial aspect of the study. And I haven't read anything about RAID 0. Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 20:09