Build servers offline due to failed SSD

[Dave C]

To emphasize again, the reason SSDs aren’t recommended for servers is because servers—by definition—see much heavier service, and these read/write cycles are used up more quickly.

For personal use in a PC, or such, SSDs are proving to be the dream they were promised to be.

As mentioned, given time, the technology will overcome this limitation for use in servers and these comments will be just so much past history.

Dave C.

- - - 

> The “on/off” switches in SSD’s are fragile and essentially break after too many read/write cycles.  As pointed out, it’s a get what you pay for world and cheap SSD’s are just that… cheap.   The expensive ones are more reliable because they actually make available only a portion of their total capacity, reserving the rest as replacements for such failures.  Intelligent software within the firmware manages this so that the end user experiences a much longer device lifespan.
> 
> There’s lots of technical documentation for such.  Google knows.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2021, at 18:15, Michael A. Leonetti via macports-users <macports-users at lists.macports.org> wrote:
>> I’d really love to know more about what you’re saying here. Up until I just read what you wrote, I thought SSDs were the savior of HDDs.
>> Michael A. Leonetti
>> As warm as green tea
>>> 3/7/21 午後5:26、Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org>のメール:
>>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Dave C via macports-users wrote:
>>>> Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty? No server farms use them, apparently due to short lifespan.
>>> If you knew how SSDs worked then you wouldn't use them at all without many backups.  Give me spinning rust any day...
>>> -- Dave