Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Two smaller (much faster) SSD's in raid, or one large SSD?

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 6, 2013 6:14:23 AM

I know this question has been asked before, and most people recommended the larger SSD. The reason I'm asking again, is because the two smaller SSD's have a significantly faster read/write speads and 4k random read/write speeds, than the single large drive. This is the small drive http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682... and these are the two large drives http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682... and http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682...

Based on the specs above, do you guys think that the smaller drives will maintain their speeds in a raid setup? Or are the speeds on the large drives representative of what happens when you put the smaller drives in raid?
a b G Storage
July 6, 2013 6:39:15 AM

240GB is enough. If you're worried about failure then backup on a HDD.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b G Storage
July 6, 2013 7:17:02 AM

Get the single larger drive, what are you doing that makes you think you will be bottlenecking the larger drive? Most people will never come close to saturating the bandwidth of an SSD, even a "slow" one. The thing that make an SSD so great for 99% of the users out there is the near "0" or almost instant access times. I certainly would not recommend RAID, at least without further elaboration as to why you may need that much bandwidth or speed.
m
0
l
a c 298 G Storage
July 6, 2013 10:09:01 AM

Don't go with the RAID confg. You will not gain anything but doubling the risk of losing all your data. Buy 1 large SSD.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 1:46:13 PM

use 2 SSD in Raid 0

and don't bother about the fail rate . those are not mechanical drives. and to your information , some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.


and if you have important data , Just back up on another drive .

and SSD wont fail the same rate of Mechanical drive. so don't worry much about it.

people are stuck to the old mechanical drive ideas when it comes to Raid 0
m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 6, 2013 1:52:59 PM

sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 3:00:22 PM

If you are not building a server database, get a single larger ssd drive. They are plenty fast already.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 3:01:50 PM

USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean

Seriously though I think he's referring to the OCZ Revodrive etc which do indeed use onboard RAID 0.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 4:02:32 AM

USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7

Quote:
Quick and clear

You can work and play faster than ever on the new Aspire S7, as it packs a RAID 0 solid state drive (SSD) with two times faster performance than standard SSDs.


2- MSI Notebook with 3x SSD in Raid 0

Link : http://dragoonarmy.msi.com/home/weapons/GT70-Dragon-Edi...

Quote:
3 mSATA SSDs (128GB) Super RAID 2 design gives the storage performance up to 1500MB/s storage performance on MSI GT series, the reading, writing and saving speeds is 15x faster than a single 750GB 7200rpm HDD


I can search for more , but this is enough,

as for PCIexpress SSD , they ALL use raid , we don't have the tehnology for 2G/second and above YET chips + Controller , all of them use Raid0 to reach more than 2G/s , some offer the option of Raid5 as well with the SSD modules removable. this includes OCZ , Intel and all other PCIe SSD Makers.

You need to know that Electronic storage device is safer than Mechanical one .

Two SSD in Raid0 has less fail rate of a SINGLE Mechanical drive . so just keep your important files on a backup media , Even a SINGLE drive can fail .
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 4:06:52 AM

I'm with sna on the reliability thing. Maybe I put too much faith in SSDs, but I don't think they're so failure-prone that striped RAID is a serious concern. And especially now that TRIM can support RAID it seems like the small additional expense would be worth the added performance? By the way, what exactly are the requirements now for RAID TRIM? Just a modern motherboard chipset or is there some requirement on the drive side too?
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 4:12:06 AM

sam_p_lay said:
I'm with sna on the reliability thing. Maybe I put too much faith in SSDs, but I don't think they're so failure-prone that striped RAID is a serious concern. And especially now that TRIM can support RAID it seems like the small additional expense would be worth the added performance? By the way, what exactly are the requirements now for RAID TRIM? Just a modern motherboard chipset or is there some requirement on the drive side too?


only New Intel Chipset supports TRIM today. I think Starting from X79 up , check out the specs in Intel site ..
m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 7, 2013 4:12:11 AM

sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7



Actually, I was looking for some documentation on the "faster and better" part.
Are 2 consumer grade SSD's in RAID faster than a single larger one?
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 7:08:33 AM

USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7



Actually, I was looking for some documentation on the "faster and better" part.
Are 2 consumer grade SSD's in RAID faster than a single larger one?


It depends on your application and file size , it will range from the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less . so it is a win win situation.

as for "larger" it does not apply here , Raid 0 adds up the Capacity it is the same

one 500G or one 500G in 256x2 SSD Raid 0 .. same size no "larger"

m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 7, 2013 7:15:15 AM

sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7



Actually, I was looking for some documentation on the "faster and better" part.
Are 2 consumer grade SSD's in RAID faster than a single larger one?


It depends on your application and file size , it will range from the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less . so it is a win win situation.

as for "larger" it does not apply here , Raid 0 adds up the Capacity it is the same

one 500G or one 500G in 256x2 SSD Raid 0 .. same size no "larger"



Well, that's what I meant by 'larger'. A single 512GB drive, vs 2 x 256 in RAID0.
And still no actual documentation on real world results showing "the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less".

I'm ready to be convinced. But I haven't seen it yet.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 7:58:29 AM

USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7



Actually, I was looking for some documentation on the "faster and better" part.
Are 2 consumer grade SSD's in RAID faster than a single larger one?


It depends on your application and file size , it will range from the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less . so it is a win win situation.

as for "larger" it does not apply here , Raid 0 adds up the Capacity it is the same

one 500G or one 500G in 256x2 SSD Raid 0 .. same size no "larger"



Well, that's what I meant by 'larger'. A single 512GB drive, vs 2 x 256 in RAID0.
And still no actual documentation on real world results showing "the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less".

I'm ready to be convinced. But I haven't seen it yet.


Why Don't you test it yourself ? it is cheap , get 2x 128 Samsung 840 pro and raid 0 them and use TRIM ... That's a ~240$ only. you don't need to be convinced when it is cheap to try .

m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 7, 2013 8:20:11 AM

sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7



Actually, I was looking for some documentation on the "faster and better" part.
Are 2 consumer grade SSD's in RAID faster than a single larger one?


It depends on your application and file size , it will range from the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less . so it is a win win situation.

as for "larger" it does not apply here , Raid 0 adds up the Capacity it is the same

one 500G or one 500G in 256x2 SSD Raid 0 .. same size no "larger"



Well, that's what I meant by 'larger'. A single 512GB drive, vs 2 x 256 in RAID0.
And still no actual documentation on real world results showing "the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less".

I'm ready to be convinced. But I haven't seen it yet.


Why Don't you test it yourself ? it is cheap , get 2x 128 Samsung 840 pro and raid 0 them and use TRIM ... That's a ~240$ only. you don't need to be convinced when it is cheap to try .



Cheap to try? 2 new drives + new motherboard (X79) to support TRIM with RAID + new CPU to go with the new mb...
Not my definition of 'cheap'.

I already have 2 SSD's working just fine. A 128 Kingston and a 128 Sandisk.
I see people making claims that it would, in fact, be up to "twice as fast". Show me. I'm not splashing out my time and money to prove your point.

Whereas on the other side, we have this:


If you have some different data, I'm ready to be convinced. Just saying it is so does not make it so.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 8:26:41 AM

USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
USAFRet said:
sna said:
some notebooks are offering 2x and 3x SSD in Raid 0 today . and they ARE Faster and better. and PCIe fast cards use also SSD chips in Raid 0.



Citation needed.


Examples ,

Acer S7 Notebooks.

Link : http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/series/aspires7



Actually, I was looking for some documentation on the "faster and better" part.
Are 2 consumer grade SSD's in RAID faster than a single larger one?


It depends on your application and file size , it will range from the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less . so it is a win win situation.

as for "larger" it does not apply here , Raid 0 adds up the Capacity it is the same

one 500G or one 500G in 256x2 SSD Raid 0 .. same size no "larger"



Well, that's what I meant by 'larger'. A single 512GB drive, vs 2 x 256 in RAID0.
And still no actual documentation on real world results showing "the SAME PERFORMANCE to DOUBLE Performance. but not less".

I'm ready to be convinced. But I haven't seen it yet.


Why Don't you test it yourself ? it is cheap , get 2x 128 Samsung 840 pro and raid 0 them and use TRIM ... That's a ~240$ only. you don't need to be convinced when it is cheap to try .



Cheap to try? 2 new drives + new motherboard (X79) to support TRIM with RAID + new CPU to go with the new mb...
Not my definition of 'cheap'.

I already have 2 SSD's working just fine. A 128 Kingston and a 128 Sandisk.
I see people making claims that it would, in fact, be up to "twice as fast". Show me. I'm not splashing out my time and money to prove your point.

Whereas on the other side, we have this:


If you have some different data, I'm ready to be convinced. Just saying it is so does not make it so.


you are a troll. who told you start up time is a big factor for REAL PC users ?

Start up time is not the main reason for a faster drive ...

as I said , it will range from the SAME Performance (as start up times you showed) to Double Performance .

and here is a review

http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=762&pagenumbe...

and by the way , you don't need X79 for Trim support , Z77 , Z87 also support trim.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 8:29:17 AM

Haha settle down. The trolling only just started with the name-calling. That just makes you look bad. That's not actually boot time if you look carefully - it's also application start time.
m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 7, 2013 8:38:47 AM

sna said:


you are a troll. who told you start up time is a big factor for REAL PC users ?

Start up time is not the main reason for a faster drive ...

as I said , it will range from the SAME Performance (as start up times you showed) to Double Performance .

and here is a review

http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=762&pagenumbe...

and by the way , you don't need X79 for Trim support , Z77 , Z87 also support trim.


Well...from your link, I see comparisons between several different SSD RAID0 arrays. Some faster, some slower. As is to be expected.
Not a comparison between a RAID0 array and a similar size single drive. Say a 512 vs 2 x 256.

I remain unconvinced.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 9:08:15 AM

USAFRet said:
sna said:


you are a troll. who told you start up time is a big factor for REAL PC users ?

Start up time is not the main reason for a faster drive ...

as I said , it will range from the SAME Performance (as start up times you showed) to Double Performance .

and here is a review

http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=762&pagenumbe...

and by the way , you don't need X79 for Trim support , Z77 , Z87 also support trim.


Well...from your link, I see comparisons between several different SSD RAID0 arrays. Some faster, some slower. As is to be expected.
Not a comparison between a RAID0 array and a similar size single drive. Say a 512 vs 2 x 256.

I remain unconvinced.


well sad day for you , that you are too lazy to find Samsung 840 pro 128 review and compare the numbers in the single review vs the Raid0 review. don't expect me to do everything for you.

you need to understand that opening a program is different from USING the program after opening it.

when you start up a program , it opens several hundreds tiny files that's a lot of I/O and tiny files. you wont see big difference here .

but once the Program is OPENED , inside the program , dealing with huge data files MAKES a big difference between Raid and no Raid . importing , exporting , viewing , and rendering. you will be dealing with huge files and a single or few I/O. being raw photo files or movies , etc.

or copying a backup big file before editing it as well into another folder . like movie files or huge raw Photo files ...

"opening" programs is not like "using" programs.
m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 7, 2013 9:12:49 AM

sna said:


well sad day for you , that you are too lazy to find Samsung 840 pro 128 review and compare the numbers in the single review vs the Raid0 review. don't expect me to do everything for you.


Whatever...You're the one making the claim.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 9:40:55 AM

USAFRet said:
sna said:


well sad day for you , that you are too lazy to find Samsung 840 pro 128 review and compare the numbers in the single review vs the Raid0 review. don't expect me to do everything for you.


Whatever...You're the one making the claim.


and who said I work for you?

sequential read write will be double ... does this needs rocket science to notice?

1G/s is the same of 500M /s ??!??
m
0
l
July 8, 2013 4:29:10 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Haha settle down. The trolling only just started with the name-calling. That just makes you look bad. That's not actually boot time if you look carefully - it's also application start time.


I did not say boot time. I said startup time.

read my comments again.


m
0
l
July 12, 2013 8:10:55 AM

hey,

So if I'm only using the large SSD to stream samples for digital recording(read only) would it make a difference if I use 1 large or a few smaller SSD drives?
A lot of people in the digital recording world are saying several smalls ones.

thnx
G


USAFRet said:
1 large.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,...
RAID 0: Great For Benchmarks, Not So Much In The Real World


jitpublisher said:
Get the single larger drive, what are you doing that makes you think you will be bottlenecking the larger drive? Most people will never come close to saturating the bandwidth of an SSD, even a "slow" one. The thing that make an SSD so great for 99% of the users out there is the near "0" or almost instant access times. I certainly would not recommend RAID, at least without further elaboration as to why you may need that much bandwidth or speed.

m
0
l
a c 863 G Storage
July 12, 2013 9:31:34 AM

gstew said:
hey,

So if I'm only using the large SSD to stream samples for digital recording(read only) would it make a difference if I use 1 large or a few smaller SSD drives?
A lot of people in the digital recording world are saying several smalls ones.

thnx
G



Well... I always use multiple drives, be they SSD or HDD. 1 for OS and easily replaceable applications, other drives for data. If I have to blow away the OS for any reason, none of my actual data is lost.
But not in a RAID setup.
m
0
l
!