So are there any downsides besides a slightly worse GB/$ and read/write speed to using a bunch of flash drives instead of SSDs for archiving data? Would it work fine if I had a bunch of flash drives plugged in 24/7 mounted as read only?
>>54459470
Solar flares will invade your SSD data while its powered off and damage it.
>>54459490
It's cool I can wrap my computer in a Faraday cage.
Well, I don't know how they compare to SSDs, but I remember OpenBSD didn't ever support installation from flash because some problem to do with the medium being inherently unstable.
Dunno if de Raat has changed his mind since, and dunno if it wasn't just an excuse for being lazy, but that's what he said.
>>54459537
Last time I installed it (5.7 I think) I did it just fine from a flash drive, and to a flash drive. I don't know if it supports /dev/disk/by-uuid/ or whatever though, so it's probably not suitable for a USB-based install like Linux is.
>>54459470
>SSDs for archiving data
uwotm8?
>>54460142
Supposedly lower power consumption and better life (if not used for a swap drive) than HDDs.
>>54459470
Size? Large USB drives stick out pretty far, seems like an accident waiting to happen.
>>54459470
chinkshit flash drives are the modern equivalent of the 3.5" floppy drive: serviceable for sneakernet, but you should be prepared for them to lose your data at any given time with no notice.
>>54460432
They do indeed longer lifetime than HDDs and consume much less power. This is particularly useful for laptops, specifically if used with m.2. form factor drives.
Anyway usb flash drives have terrible random 4k write/read speeds required for efficient system usage, as well as a much more limited lifetime as they're not really designed with that kind of longevity in mind.
>>54460490
The one in the picture is 128 GB and tiny.
>>54460553
Do USB flash drives die easily if they're mounted read only? I'm not worried about read/write speed.
>>54460619
Short answer yes, they're simply not built for quality. The controllers just aren't up for the task.
>>54460619
Yeah, but 128GB for archiving? When someone says archiving I think TB.
>>54460686
I'm more looking at GB/$ for solid state storage. It's only slightly worse than getting SSDs, and I have more USB ports than SATA ports on my computer.
>>54460745
I don't really see a problem personally, though some drives get burst into flames levels of hot, so be careful about selection. Otherwise, seems fine, I've seen a bunch of people use them as their OS drive of all things.
>>54460781
I use the one pictured as a Windows To Go workplace for Win10. The write speeds are abysmal, but it works. I also have a small Sandisk drive, and that one gets way hotter when I boot off of it.
>>54460677
The Samsung one in the picture has a 5 year warranty. Would it last that long just being on with no writes and infrequent reads?
>>54460865
>The Samsung one in the picture has a 5 year warranty. Would it last that long just being on with no writes and infrequent reads?
Yeah pretty much. Like the other anon said an OS needs random 4k read/write.
