Sometime this spring (when it arrives) I will buy a new desktop system. It will probably have two block devices: a traditional SATA large capacity hard drive and a much smaller and faster flash drive.
The theory says that cheap flash drives are much faster and will even probably outlive mechanical spinning disks. Flash systems do slowly go bad so use wear-levelling software in the controller to maximise life. The other problem with flash drives is that they are relatively small, so a larger drive either in the box or on the network is required given how much space life takes up...
I've no plan to join the two drives together with LVM, it seems pointless, instead they will be kept separate and one mounted onto the other. At the moment most of my systems use ext3 except one box which uses ext3 and XFS.
If I install a new box from the Wheezy ISO I'm guessing I'll get ext4 as default. I gather this is the logical upgrade from ext3 until something fancy is really ready and it is not an all singing-dancing next generation filesystem. Does anyone know how it compares with XFS on large disks or flash disks?
I'll probably use ext4 on the flash disk (root & boot file systems) and XFS on the spinning disk (/srv) as it's where I'll dump my media files which aren't small and XFS is supposed to be good for that, unless it's not worth the effort.