I was in a discussion about flash on a closed mailing list, so I'll post my comments here.
I believe that flash will soon be suitable for main storage on most desktop and laptop machines (which means replacing the vast majority of the hard drive market). Flash survives mechanical wear much better than hard drives (flash storage in a camera will usually survive the destruction of the camera), it produces less heat and less noise, and it has better seek times. It is more expensive, although the price is coming down and the main problem now is the number of writes that can be made.
Flash is widely regarded as being slow for bulk IO (benchmark results I have seen approach 10MB/s - while 60MB/s is common for cheap desktop IDE disks). I am not sure how much of this is inherent to flash technology and how much is due to the interface used to access the flash. I often work with Gig-E networks, but for my home use I only have 100baseT, so I have little need for more than 10MB/s IO rates at home.
It is generally regarded that a sector of flash storage wears out at between 10,000 and 1,000,000 writes depending on how recent the hardware is and who you talk to (some vendors are more optimistic than others regarding the usable life of their devices).
Let's assume that you have a 32G flash module running JFFS2 with an average of 2G free (30G of long-term data that doesn't change and 2G of space that is used for new files). Let's assume that the most pessimistic prediction for flash reliability of 10,000 writes happens to be correct. So if 10,000 writes are to be made to that 2G of space that means 20T of data written! If we assume that the machine will be obsolete in 5 years then that allows us an average of just over 10G of data written per day (20,000/365/5=10.9). On my laptop iostat reports the following after 5 days of uptime:
I believe that this means an average of 20 blocks were written per second over the last 5 days with a block size of 4K (page size), this means 6.6G per day. Clearly something is wrong with my laptop as there should not be so many writes, but even so I wouldn't expect it to wear out within 5 years if I used only flash storage. Incidentally I do a lot of travelling and generally find that I'm lucky if a laptop hard drive lasts three years. So I could expect flash to last longer than a hard drive for my laptop use.
Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
hda 1.94 9.94 20.33 4614118 9439808
When flash fails I believe that only a small part of the data will be lost, which is better than the hard drive failure condition which is often to lose everything!
Also there is nothing preventing you from creating a RAID-1 of flash devices. Last time I checked the JFFS2 kernel code didn't support such things but that could be fixed if there was suitable hardware.
Note that JFFS2 is vastly preferable to using Ext3 or similar filesystems on a flash device. Flash needs wear-levelling (spreading the write load over all parts of the disk) for sane operation. JFFS2 has this built in to the filesystem, while Ext3 etc are designed to repeatedly write the same parts of the disk. This means that to use Ext3 you need a mapping layer that does wear-levelling which causes inefficiency. Also JFFS2 has compression built in (same method as gzip). This is good for smaller flash devices (EG the 32M storage that was common in iPaQs), and also reduces the wear on larger storage.
The biggest problem for me in using flash at the moment is the lack of support for XATTRs (needed for SE Linux) in JFFS2. KaiGai Kohei has been working on this, it's been a while since I checked on the progress so I'm not sure if it's got into the kernel.org repository yet.
Another problem with flash is that it is totally unsuitable for use as a swap device. This means that you need to have so much RAM that swap is not needed. Fortunately desktop machines with 2G of RAM are becoming common.