Well, it doesn't have anything different than a 128 GB drive than, except it internally includes two 64 GB drives. It should double the performance, but it also doubles the risk of losing data (as I know the data is "shared" simultaneously to two drives so if one fails the data is lost as no one can create the entire data from one lost one avaiable one lost one available... patterned part of the file).
Yeah, having a RAID 0 config doubles your chance of data loss, but if this was a single drive and one of the drives (i.e. the only drive) went out, your data would be toast. I think the deal with this is that you get enhanced performance and, given the MTBF for SSD, little additional risk.
I think this is the way of the future, smaller SSD coupled with RAID (imagine four 64GB in a RAID 5 config the size of a standard 3.5" drive)...Brilliant!
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Well, it doesn't have anything different than a 128 GB drive than, except it internally includes two 64 GB drives. It should double the performance, but it also doubles the risk of losing data (as I know the data is "shared" simultaneously to two drives so if one fails the data is lost as no one can create the entire data from one lost one avaiable one lost one available... patterned part of the file).
Ok I tried to explain as much as I could :)
Yeah, having a RAID 0 config doubles your chance of data loss, but if this was a single drive and one of the drives (i.e. the only drive) went out, your data would be toast. I think the deal with this is that you get enhanced performance and, given the MTBF for SSD, little additional risk.
I think this is the way of the future, smaller SSD coupled with RAID (imagine four 64GB in a RAID 5 config the size of a standard 3.5" drive)...Brilliant!