On 27/09/2013 09:29, Alan Pope wrote:
> I suspect when Adam said "Flash" he meant "SSD".
I'm sure he did.
> Which are almost always faster than spinning rust. Unless you have a
> really expensive rusty drive or a really cheap and terrible SSD.
>
Indeed. You're right though in guessing that in my mind were other
classes of flash drive. I use CF for some jobs and that is very often
slower than a hard disc.
On reliability, though, I've seen more than a few posts from people
who've had 'brand' SSD drives replaced several times in startlingly
quick succession because they've failed yet again. I'm not sure why
that should be as flash itself is usually pretty reliable. SSDs (etc.)
have redundancy to circumvent errors, and indeed to deal with the
strange fact that flash, unlike most semiconductors, actually _does_
wear out.
Gordon.
--
This message was written elegantly and lucidly, by my own fair hand using a quill pen on hand laid parchment. It was then scanned, OCRed, spiel-chequed, then cat und pastied into this email.
If it's now just gibberish, it's the software's fault.
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
