This article was posted more because ive found a lot of articles recently by people who claim to have experience in this subject matter, and claim the gain from using SSDs is minimal, and that there are other bottlenecks to solve before SSDs are even worth it.

This article is to dispell those beliefs....  Ive seen it first hand here, and explained why it makes such a difference.

As for why the editor doesnt work, ill look into it, it doesnt use flash, it only uses Ajax, Javascript, and CSS.  Its also reported to work in firefox.

It seems to be working for me today. I'm not sure what happened yesterday. Thanks anyways!

So why not set up a Raid 5 system with SSDs in case of failure? That would give you the speed of SSDs and the fallback of Raid 5.

--Grey--

RAID 5 does not work well with SSDs due to the way in which it does Parity, it will kill the SSDs a lot quicker than using RAID 1 or RAID 10 modes.  You may or may not know that SSDs have a finite number of write cycles, and Setting SSDs up in RAID 5 is simular to running a Defrag on them and will eat up 20% or more of the write cycles needlessly and the SSDs will begin to fail in much shorter time and need to be replaced.

RAID 0, 1, and 10 are far less detrimental but still suffer the issue a small bit.  So i run the drives independantly, and back them up regularly to other media as reading them for a backup does not reduce their life at all.

The logs generated by linux also generate a lot of writes that can reduce the life time of an SSD and for that reason, all the logs for the server are remapped to go to a small throwaway SSD that is cheap to replace, a 60GB i got on sale for 30 bucks.   When it dies i can throw in anything just to hold the logs.

The servers are up to 8 SSDs now and 2 SAS Drives