MySpace's new servers also replaced its high-performance
hosts that held data in large RAM cache modules, a costly
method MySpace had been using in order to achieve the
necessary throughput to serve its relational databases.
MySpace said its new servers using the NAND flash memory
modules give it the same performance as its older RAM
servers.
Given Facebook's dependence on memcached (look at some of the work they've done at optimizing the Linux network stack) I wonder if this is something they're considering. This is a pretty big leap in terms of performance. I just wish the cost wasn't so insane.
And the longevity of these drives is a concern. What happens when you run out of good bits in the drive?
FWIW and per Google and CMU retrospectives, the vendor-published MTBF rates appear very optimistic, about 36% of large HDD populations failed with no SMART data logged, and only about half of impending HDD failures were reasonably predicted by SMART. I'd expect the predictive values of various of the SMART data points to be (very) different with SSD, too.
Until we get a population of these SSDs in the field and better studied, then we'll have a better idea of the failure rates, and whether SMART needs to be considered or reconsidered.
And the longevity of these drives is a concern. What happens when you run out of good bits in the drive?