On 22/03/2017 19:55, druck wrote:
> On 21/03/2017 23:43, James Harris wrote:
>> On 21/03/2017 23:17, druck wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2017 23:12, James Harris wrote:
>>>> True. Sorry to druck for not reading his/her post properly. An SSD
>>>> might
>>>> be an option for some applications. But I think I would rather have
>>>> multiple raid-1 USB sticks - if I can find some that don't compete with
>>>> the stove.
>>>
>>> A RAID of memory sticks will be far more likely to suffer failures than
>>> one good quality SSD.
>>
>> Nevertheless, if one of three raid-1 memory sticks failed it could be
>> hot-replaced and the array would continue uninterrupted. (Two would be
>> enough but three would be safer.)
>
> The failure mode of flash is such that it becomes unreliable before
> failing completely. If you aren't lucky you'd end up with 3 degrading
> sticks all containing slightly different contents, and unsure what data
> is good and what isn't.

That's the first I have heard of flash failure modes. From a quick
read-up it seems that writes start to fail. Presumably they are only a
problem if they go undetected. So don't flash drivers read back what
they have written?


--
James Harris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05