Bristol Digest, Vol 594, Issue 1

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: SSDs (was Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2)
(Colin M. Strickland)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:23:16 +0000
From: "Colin M. Strickland" <cms@beatworm.co.uk>
To: "Bristol and Bath Linux User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] SSDs (was Bristol Digest, Vol 588, Issue 2)
Message-ID: <2CF94C15-D779-4849-B732-F6434E62BF80@beatworm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

On 15 Mar 2015, at 11:23, Alex Butcher wrote:

> Hence my warning to back up SSDs more dilligently than (many of us) do
> our
> spinning rust HDDs. Of course, if you already dilligently back up
> your
> HDDs, then SSDs indeed don't need to be treated any differently.

Sure, they perform differently, and they fail differently.

I think I'm just reminding people to measure, and read. If it's a system
whose reliability is important to you, it should be monitored, and have
a demonstratable failure recovery plan. This seems obvious to me, but I
suppose I am old-school nowadays (and just the other day I saw this[1]
pass by on twitter just to underline that)

[1] https://twitter.com/larsr_h/status/576463594377867264
--
Regards,
Colin M. Strickland, cms, 'that guy'.



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 594, Issue 1
***************************************