Need opinion on two SSDs for Raid 0 (1Gb/s reads)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

ace2289

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
10
0
10,510
I am looking to buy two SSDs to buy for raid 0 on my 2011 socket build. I have already two corsair force gs 128GB which have been an unknown disappointment. I say that because I have in raid 226gb out of them. Crystal Disk Mark which to me is a real performance mark gives me random numbers, highest being 800mb read and 450mb write. So I am wondering if I should switch it up. I was thinking about the OCZ Vertex 4 128GB model and getting two of them and I wanted to get your opinion on things. Corsair was sort of an ass on the forums to me because when I asked, they asked me to run ATTO and that's it. If it passes ATTO its okay, which I am not arguing, but in CDM I have gotten numbers lower than one drive at times, so it has had me concerned. My budget per drive is no more than $130 each, so 260 total. If you have other suggestions, please let me know. But I am debating if the corsairs are worth getting rid of to switch out with the Vertex 4s. I just want the best bang for my buck I guess. The Vertexes have caught my eye more than anything else and I have had good experience with OCZ because I owned two Vertex II that lived up to their specs.

Thanks for all your help guys.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,298
4,146
174,240
I have tried two ssd's in raid-0, without noticing any performance difference compared to a single larger drive.

Raid-0 has been over hyped as a performance enhancer.
Sequential benchmarks do look wonderful, but the real world does not seem to deliver the indicated performance benefits for most
desktop users. The reason is, that sequential benchmarks are coded for maximum overlapped I/O rates.
It depends on reading a stripe of data simultaneously from each raid-0 member, and that is rarely what we do.
The OS does mostly small random reads and writes, so raid-0 is of little use there.
There are some apps that will benefit. They are characterized by reading large files in a sequential overlapped manner.

Also, all modern SSD's will perform about the same, differences are only detectable with synthetic benchmarks.
I shopping, I would go after Intel or Samsung SSD's first; they have better track records.

In general, it is better to use a single larger ssd in lieu of two smaller ones.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

ace2289

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
10
0
10,510


You are right. But I do a little bit of everything. That is the only reason why. Yes my old ocz's had a hiccup where they were failing and OCZ was excellent about the entire RMA process. I am not unreasonable about expectations when it comes to RMA. I will say though, I don't care about data redundancy because I have a server with plenty of raid 1 setups. So important stuff is always backed up for me. I just want the best performance for the buck deal. The OCZ vector drives did catch my eye moulderhere. I might just end up going with that. I will say this much in defense of CDM, CDM to me has been a pretty accurate measuring tool for actual performance, because it goes with raw data. Unless I am misinformed, all the numbers are good till you can actually feel it. When this 2011 build is booting up and racking up to a 2 year old build in terms of boot up time, running performance, I feel that something is up. I appreciate all the responses by the way.

Thank you very very much everyone. If you have more input, I am all ears.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom