On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:52:17 +0000
The Natural Philosopher  wrote:

> In my limited experience SSDS are ALREADY more long-lived than disks and
> more reliable. Even under fairly heavy usage. They are just expensive.....

 I'm inclined to agree. I use SSDs for boot discs in all my systems
and haven't lost one yet (the oldest one in use doesn't even support TRIM).

 That being said I don't trust them (or anything else) unresevedly,
my NAS uses refurbished 2TB 3.5" SAS drives[1] in four ZFS mirrors and all
the boot discs are mirrored to zvols exported over iscsi from the NAS.

[1] These are currently a reliable storage bargain because they were never
used in high load environments (the 2.5" 15K rpm drives went there) and so
spent their life mostly idle before being replaced due to age.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05