View Single Post
  #6  
Old December 8th 07, 10:58 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Arno Wagner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,796
Default Stick with onboard SATA controller instead of dedicated one, along with seperate 3ware?

Previously lars wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:


SSDs are close to computer memory. Adding an external RAID layer to
them sounds like a very wrong thing to do to me. Any redundancy
should be done in teh SSD itself.

Arno


You know that in high end IBM and other servers RAID 1 for the memory is
availably.


RAID for memory? Are you sure you are not talking about ECC,
which is far better for memory? I do not expect this type of really,
really bad engineering out of IBM, unless the customer demands
it (due to incompetence). Care to list a reference?

And come to think of it there is still the problem of FRU if doing the
redundancy in the SSD itself. So for real life in a sever, no sir RAID
still has its advances - otherwise 24x7 can't be done.


RAID is fine. But RAID for SSDs is just a sign that the technology
is not being understood. The problem here is that while HDDs
a) typically fail as a unit and b) typically notice when they are
failing, RAID makes a lot of sense with HDDs. SSDs are more likely
to fail in memory locations. A quality SSD can compensate with ECC.
If it cannot, then its controller chip is shot )or something very, very
unlikely happened) and it may give arbitrary wrong data to the
user. RAID does not help at all in this case. Of course this is
simplified.

Arno