From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 01:00:57 -0500 From: William Josephson To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20090307060057.GA65761@mero.morphisms.net> References: <20090307030128.GA64231@mero.morphisms.net> <48b6abbc3c8630483d7867a2f9984f3a@quanstro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48b6abbc3c8630483d7867a2f9984f3a@quanstro.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks Topicbox-Message-UUID: b56e839e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 10:31:59PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > it's interesting to note that the quoted mtbf numbers for ssds is > within a factor of 2 of enterprise hard drives. if one considers that > one needs ~4 ssds to cover the capacity of 1 hard drive, the quoted > mtbf/byte is worse for ssd. That's only if you think of flash as a direct replacement for disk. SSDs are expensive on a $/MB basis compared to disks. The good ones start looking cheap if you instead price on $/IOPS. I think you'll start seeing a lot more of these in things like NAS appliances. For short-lived data you only need go over the I/O bus twice vs. three times for most NVRAMs based on battery-backed DRAM. -WJ