Am 02.11.2010 19:49, schrieb Joe Hartley: > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:19:18 +0100 > Benjamin Freitag <benjamin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If you need high speed access(e.g. live transmission), become aware how >> cheap ram is today, and try to use something like the following command: >> "mount -o size=2000M -t tmpfs none /media/ram" >> >> No SSD can beat that...(actually) >> > But the SSD will retain its data when the machine crashes, or the power goes > out, or when the drummer decides to find out what that button does (it turns > the UPS on and off, doofus). I'd never record to a RAM disk because there's > always an additional step needed to write to the "real" storage. Even if > you use rsync to only write what's new, there may be significant delays while > you do the dump. > > Hey, linux machines dont crash as long as your proggies are compiled n programmed correctly. And even when, have you heard about buffers(also those of you ssd?), to counter effects like low speeds when fragmentation occurs, thats not an argument "when your machine crashes". And why is the drummer sitting next to the UPS and you didnt tell him he IS THERE FOR DRUMMING, not manipulating your systems? >> In the end, applied correctly SSDs may speed up your workflow, >> but cheap or faulty SSDs may destroy your whole contractors data. >> > So can bad RAM and/or bad hard drives. In my experience SSDs are now no > more or less prone to problems than any other part of the computer. Backups > should be approached like voting in Chicago - early and often! > > And "in your experience" is how many years? The 1.000.000 hrs MTBF is calculated when running 1000 drives for 1000 hrs and one starts to fail, so every 1000 customers it may happen. Yes wear level algorithms became better, and yes it all becomes better, but still the testing time was too low for final statements. >> For the money of two cheap SSD(needed for solid performance) >> you may buy an old server with wnough ram slots an redundant gigabit(min >> 2000MB/s) and you are just fine >> > It'd be extremely hard to find a server that runs quietly enough for a studio > environment. I have a nice tower that was designed to be as quiet as possible. > Putting SSDs in will allow me to make it even quieter than it is now. > > I do agree that having 2 mirrored drives is more secure, though. > > Not secure, i mean speed, ssds still go down in read/write speeds when you have fragmented disks Security only comes by Backups. I love SSDs when recording in live venues, because heavy low subs WILL kill HDs sooner or later. I hate my G.Skill with JMF602b because it had a short circuit via USB(faulty port on the disk ) and now all e-mails, bills etc are lost. Just think about it.. Youll never be 100% safe, but you may try.. C Ya _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
