SSD built with hard drive redundancy
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: quick question about SSD's
Next: Got it working! First post from inside Damn Small Linux! Needmore help pls
From: Metspitzer on 28 Jun 2010 14:56 It would be nice if computers started coming with built in redundancy. I could imagine using a 40 G SSD drive that would store a virgin copy of the OS that could not be changed. It would then store any updates and anything else you want for speed. Then use a data drive to keep a copy of the SSD drive as well as space for everything else. Any data loss from bad spots on the SSD drive could be automatically blocked and other space could be replaced like Raid technology.
From: John Doe on 28 Jun 2010 15:30 Metspitzer <kilowatt charter.net> wrote: > It would be nice if computers started coming with built in > redundancy. > > I could imagine using a 40 G SSD drive that would store a virgin > copy of the OS that could not be changed. It would then store > any updates and anything else you want for speed. Then use a > data drive to keep a copy of the SSD drive as well as space for > everything else. That is called "Macrium Reflect". And it is free to boot. -- > > Any data loss from bad spots on the SSD drive could be automatically > blocked and other space could be replaced like Raid technology. > > > > Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:56:20 -0500 > From: Metspitzer <kilowatt charter.net> > Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > Subject: SSD built with hard drive redundancy > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:56:24 -0400 > Message-ID: <9lrh26ll78gkmhhe4q4fdkkauhrk1924e8 4ax.com> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 10 > X-Trace: sv3-YgLyPn7tW6KHIENs1Q1mk/ng4Iv7Lq//9M4sXnjAAfvWDnO27jFHvgc4l+B4DXCCGC+2pHbeRSLkcpO!DA8faLkQCY4+PEwOS8jmWo/wJea0l78ywPjfCEYblyn7P8kWndR6MyCPseSeyy9oDgWrUiFFDURc!4JI22g== > X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html > X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 >
From: DevilsPGD on 28 Jun 2010 16:33 In message <9lrh26ll78gkmhhe4q4fdkkauhrk1924e8(a)4ax.com> Metspitzer <kilowatt(a)charter.net> was claimed to have wrote: >It would be nice if computers started coming with built in redundancy. > >I could imagine using a 40 G SSD drive that would store a virgin copy >of the OS that could not be changed. It would then store any updates >and anything else you want for speed. Then use a data drive to keep a >copy of the SSD drive as well as space for everything else. > >Any data loss from bad spots on the SSD drive could be automatically >blocked and other space could be replaced like Raid technology. Based on practical experience this far in, it's looking like you should be using that SSD to provide both speed and reliability to cover the rotational drive's shortcomings in both departments. Despite the potential for SSDs to "wear out" certain parts of the flash, this situation gets detected when data is written, there doesn't seem to be any significant "bit rot" type problems on SSDs once data is written.
From: Paul on 28 Jun 2010 18:48
Metspitzer wrote: > It would be nice if computers started coming with built in redundancy. > > I could imagine using a 40 G SSD drive that would store a virgin copy > of the OS that could not be changed. It would then store any updates > and anything else you want for speed. Then use a data drive to keep a > copy of the SSD drive as well as space for everything else. > > Any data loss from bad spots on the SSD drive could be automatically > blocked and other space could be replaced like Raid technology. > There is a device, that mixes an SSD with a hard drive. This is different than RAID 1, and isn't a 1:1 redundancy scheme. If your hard drive dies while plugged into this gadget, you lose all writes since the last manual sync operation. If the SSD dies, the loss isn't nearly as bad, as it's possible the hard drive has everything. The SSD is the one that "falls behind", which is why you need to occasionally sync it (like at the end of every work day). http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/29176-silverstone-hddboost-review.html So that isn't pure RAID 1 redundancy. If you did standard RAID 1, you'd get the speed benefit of RAID racing on reads (as the SSD would always win and deliver data first to the host). While on writes, the hard drive would be the last to finish its command, and writes would always seem to work at hard drive speeds. Which isn't actually all bad. For example, with my usage patterns here, I have a lot more read-only (reference data), than freshly written files (downloads). So I'd get a relatively good boost doing it that way. And you can do RAID 1 with your chipset, so nothing to buy except the expensive SSD. With the pure RAID 1 scheme, you're trading off the loss of blazing write speed, for the ability to have a redundant copy of the data. So you'd be less worried about the SSD dying. Paul |