2 Builds. Need help verifying these part lists.

Theres not much benefit in 3d with raid 0, 3d apps arent limited by harddrive speed.

That's a pretty generic statement, which goes back to what you already said. It depends on what the purpose of the system is. For simulations, large polygon counts, and heavy rendering the disk I/O is definitely a limiting factor. For architecture its probably not a limiting factor, and redundancy is the best use of extra disk space if the increased I/O is not necessary. For redundancy RAID isn't always the best option as there are many software packages that are set-it-and-forget-it for backup that provide protection that RAID doesn't.

Accidental file deletion or viruses can't be recovered from with RAID, but they can with backup software and JBOD. RAID 1 is really only useful on the OS drives for being able to recover quickly in an environment where up time is crucial. Cheers!

Click to expand...

Keep in mind also that 2 high end HDDs can feed an OC'd i7 enough compressed data (h/x.264) to keep it at full load if you are doing heavy loads. In short, you do not 'need' SSD performance to have an excellent editing experience. That being said, I have done one project on my SSDs, and OMG!!! the instant seek time of the SSDs really make things snappy when randomly picking a spot to start playing from!!! But other than that extra quick responsiveness I did not see much other improvement in actual use for editing and rendering speeds because compressed data is rather CPU heavy. If you start editing raw, uncompressed (or low compressed) footage (like lagarith), then you will see a huge performance boost because there is less load on the CPU, and more load on the drives, so for that workflow SSDs would make more sense... but you would need some nice big drives.

Another thing of note, especially when doing RAID with SSDs; SSDs are internally extremely parallel. Anything smaller than a 240/256GB SSD (and with next gen drives anything smaller than a 480/512GB drive) means that they have not populated all available memory slots on the board. In other words, purchasing 2 128GB SSDs is very similar in performance to a single 256GB SSD, because SSDs use an internal RAIDing scheme inside the drive, which you are just duplicating. The RAID would be a little bit faster on some uses (uncompressable), and a little slower on others (compressable), but all in all you would be better off getting a single larger SSD.
RAID has other draw backs as well: For example, lets say that your motherboard dies a terrible death... well, unless you get a new mobo with the same RAID controller, then all of your data is simply gone. Thankfully Intel RAID does not seem to be changing any time soon (I just moved from a z68 to a z77 mobo with no issues), but if something dies in 2-3 years, do you really want to go find an old mobo just to get your stuff back? or would you rather get modern stuff, and not worry about your data being stuck or lost?
Another issue with RAID on SSDs in particular is the issue of TRIM support. RAID does not allow TRIM commands to pass though on all controllers. Thus my move from z68 to z77, for that one single feature to have RAID0 with TRIM support... and it does make a notable difference over time, especially for write speeds. But even the z77 chipset only lets TRIM though on RAID0, so RAID1 or 5 are out of the question for the array with the SSDs on it.
The last major issue has to do with SSDs themselves. Even cheap SSDs will last FOREVER on the memory allocation. I did the math a long time ago, and figured out that my 240GB drive would last me ~8 years with my using it as a system drive before I used up all the memory endurance... and moving to 480GB in RAID0 made the number quite astronomical. But memory write endurance is not what dies on most SSDs; it is the controller. And having 2 drives in RAID0 (because 1 and 5 are out of the question as mentioned above) basically means that you have 2 ticking time bombs instead of one, and any single drive failure means the loss of all data.

So I am not saying to not do 2 SSDs; I mean, I enjoy mine, and my peak throughput of 1GB/s, but go into it knowing what you are getting yourself into, and be sure to back up all important data on some good old fashioned reliable drives that are in a redundant array. Personally I have my SSDs with all of my programs, active projects, and commonly used documents (music and docs). The documents are backed up via skydrive, the music is backed up via a file copy to the RAID1 array whenever I get more music, and the project files are imported to the RAID1 array first, and then copied to the SSD RAID0 to work on. The SSDs may well fail on me (especially mine as they are cheap drives), but they are not trusted with anything important where a failure would mess me up too badly (though I would be really really annoyed).

All of that said: Go with Sammy. They have better quality flash, better quality controllers, better customer service if anything does go wrong, and in this particular case it sounds like they are cheaper to begin with. But I would get larger drives. Synthetic benchmarks may be higher in RAID0, but in real life you will not get that speed unless you are starting out with fully populated drives to begin with, and 128GB drives in RAID are not going to be as fast in daily use as a single 256GB drive.

Hope all that helps!

Click to expand...