Much of the reliability gains you mention, +Michael Rutherford
, have come from better firmware for managing the actual storage as well as redundancy. As the price comes down it's easier to add 'spare' capacity. Go read about wear leveling
and bad block mapping
Now, I definitely do not mean to give the impression that SSDs fail all the time or that I've had great steaming heaps of problems. That's definitely not the case at all. But when compared with the rock-solid reliability of modern conventional drives the difference seems readily apparent.
Do I think the trade-off is worth it? Certainly. Especially for a boot drive. Especially for a Windows boot drive. But I strongly recommend making a backup plan, and using it. Life's too short to spend rebuilding boot drives. I can image my rather-full-and-busy work-a-day Windows 7 boot SSD in under 10 minutes. That's a phone call or get some coffee kind of time. Total recovery time is similar, if you ignore what it takes to boot from CD into a recovery console. It's just cheap insurance. (As an aside, I much prefer a full image backup over those 'on the fly' file backups. Lots of reasons, different discussion.)+Marwin Morado
, I'm thinking that I've got to respectfully disagree. Flash drives, if you're talking about the ubiquitous USB sticks, are just too slow. SSDs, the conventional drive replacements like we're talking about here, perform much better. Internal parallelism, DRAM buffers, etc. all contribute to that. Each technology has its niche. I agree, though, that capacities will continue to rise.+Perry Kahai
(and others), SSDs in a RAID configuration just plain rocks! Performance that'll set your hair on fire.+Michael Rutherford
, I remember those! That'd be the mid 1980s I think. Had an XT on my desk at the office with an external chassis, held two of those puppies. Ah, the lap of luxury! Thanks for the memories.