Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

2 x Samsung 840 Pro 512Gb (Separated) vs 2 x Samsung 840 Pro 512Gb RAID 0 vs Samsung 840 EVO 1Tb

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 3, 2014 12:53:45 PM

Hi!

I need to add some space to my primary storage. Right now, I have 1 Samsung 840 Pro 512Gb. I want to add either another 840 Pro and then set both of them in RAID 0 (mostly because I would prefer to have a one single storage partition, disk C:) , or leave them separated, or get a new 1Tb EVO drive (which will cost me more in the end).

Which option is the best performance-wise?

I know that RAID 0 is not so good for safety cuz if 1 drives fails - both of them will lose data, but I don't care about it since I will be doing regular backups to my 3Tb HDD anyway. So I only concerned about performance advantages, even a minor ones, of these 3 setups.
a b G Storage
January 3, 2014 1:03:38 PM

A while back Tom's did a comparison on SSD drives in RAID - and in some cases, individual drives actually beat the performance of the striped (RAID0) drives....

With that said, what is going to be stored on the SSD drives?
m
0
l
January 3, 2014 1:07:25 PM

In your case, for both performance and cost, the 2x 840 Pro will be the best option. If you do not want the hassle and possible reliability issues related with RAID 0, you could always use JBOD, which will "merge" the two drives. This will be a bit more reliable than RAID 0 because the data is written sequentially on the drives, but will offer no performance gains over a single drive.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 3, 2014 1:09:22 PM

ronintexas said:
A while back Tom's did a comparison on SSD drives in RAID - and in some cases, individual drives actually beat the performance of the striped (RAID0) drives....

With that said, what is going to be stored on the SSD drives?


OS, apps, utilities, tonnes of games, movies (high volume HD ones) and other media like mp3 songs and high res photos.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b G Storage
January 3, 2014 1:19:30 PM

The reason I asked about what would be stored on the drives, if you files are smaller (4 MP - 10 MP photos, MP3's, word documents, spreadsheets, etc), running separate drives and storing the folders in libraries (this combines them into "one drive") makes more sense - as the overhead to create one large drive for smaller files will actually run slower in this circumstance.

If the files are larger (i.e. large photoshop files, video editing, games, movies (DVD/BlueRay), etc.), utilizing one drive in RAID0 will speed up the processes by putting parts of the file on both drives, giving a larger performance boost.

The biggest bang for the buck in SSD technology is running applications (GAMES especially) on SSD, or very large files. 5-10MB MP3 files will not load that much faster (although Indexing speeds when you need to reindex your collection will be improved greatly) when you compare HDD to SSD - and actually in this case, money would be better spent on a good hard drive.

I converted my CD collection (approximately 15,000 CD's) to MP3, and loading/playing/streaming them on 4 different computers and an XBox were indistinguishable between a HDD and SSD, but indexing over 200,000 songs did go much faster on the SSD (unless you make big changes to your collection - you don't need to reindex them).
Share
a b G Storage
January 3, 2014 1:25:06 PM

Your operating system, applications, games (large ones that have high resolution graphics/3d graphics) will perform better on SSD. Surprisingly, I have about 20 BlueRay HD movies on my hard drive - and performance wasn't much different playing/streaming them....

Most HD quality photos won't benefit - and MP3s are better stored on a hard drive....

My suggestion would be to get a good estimate at the approximate installation space needed for your games that you play often, the OS and applications - and then give it about 33% extra space (if estimated is 600GB X 133% = 800GB) would be the suggested size of the SSD.

For the other stuff - I would estimate 50% extra space (if estimated 500GB X 200% = 1000GB). Most of my BlueRays I actually play in my BlueRay player just to save space....Only my favorites do I keep on the HDD.

WD Black Drives at 1TB, 2TB and 4TB perform great for these applications :-)
m
0
l
January 3, 2014 1:56:13 PM

ronintexas said:
Your operating system, applications, games (large ones that have high resolution graphics/3d graphics) will perform better on SSD. Surprisingly, I have about 20 BlueRay HD movies on my hard drive - and performance wasn't much different playing/streaming them....

Most HD quality photos won't benefit - and MP3s are better stored on a hard drive....

My suggestion would be to get a good estimate at the approximate installation space needed for your games that you play often, the OS and applications - and then give it about 33% extra space (if estimated is 600GB X 133% = 800GB) would be the suggested size of the SSD.

For the other stuff - I would estimate 50% extra space (if estimated 500GB X 200% = 1000GB). Most of my BlueRays I actually play in my BlueRay player just to save space....Only my favorites do I keep on the HDD.

WD Black Drives at 1TB, 2TB and 4TB perform great for these applications :-)


Yes, I actually already estimated everything and I will need ~800Gb for my OS, apps, games and HD movies + misc media, but since I can only go with 1Tb at a minimum, that is what I will go with then. Plus I am sure I will need more room in the future for new games and HD movies. I do also keep just my favourite movies on my HDD. I convert bdrays into 1 single .m2ts or .mkv files just so they don't look as messy. Right now, playing those single file bdrays on my 3Tb WD Red HDD is a bit of a laggy experience. So that is also why I want to stretch my SSD storage.

I wonder, if playing those large files will wear down my RAID 0 SSD massive?

Maybe I should just keep usage of my SSDs at a minimum?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 3, 2014 2:05:49 PM

Theoretically, SSDs are more reliable than a hard drive - lab testing has them writing non-stop to drives that can't be reproduced in the home environment, and they last for years. With any drive, spindle or SSD, 3-5 years is the usually max for a primary OS/data drive....time will tell on the current batch of SSDs....I have read articles where they say 10+ years for most home users.

RAID will give you a single drive - but with libraries - you can split them between drives and they become transparent to you....even installing software. It seems "tidy" to have a single drive...the failure points make me nervous....

What type of playback are you using that a WD RED 3TB will give you "laggy experience"? Is is streamed or played through the PC?
m
0
l
a c 812 G Storage
a b Ô Samsung
January 3, 2014 2:07:07 PM

You can read and SSD all you want with no wear, its writing to them that causes wear and one of the reasons you want to move temp files (and the like) off an SSD.

Since you are at 800Gb already, I'me going to say grab the 1tb. This will almost double your current available space and give you more time to save for up for when you will need to add yet another 1tb. LoL
m
0
l
January 3, 2014 2:16:33 PM

ronintexas said:
Theoretically, SSDs are more reliable than a hard drive - lab testing has them writing non-stop to drives that can't be reproduced in the home environment, and they last for years. With any drive, spindle or SSD, 3-5 years is the usually max for a primary OS/data drive....time will tell on the current batch of SSDs....I have read articles where they say 10+ years for most home users.

RAID will give you a single drive - but with libraries - you can split them between drives and they become transparent to you....even installing software. It seems "tidy" to have a single drive...the failure points make me nervous....

What type of playback are you using that a WD RED 3TB will give you "laggy experience"? Is is streamed or played through the PC?


I just use K-Lite codecs with WMC. Usually played on my PC, and through PC on my Samsung TV.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 3, 2014 2:44:00 PM

I haven't had any issues with DVD/BlueRay playback in WMC - and my HTPC isn't a big machine (AMD quad core - low end budget with 8GB and onboard graphics). The only thing I do when I am playing them to my big screen (60" plasma), it goes through the XBox360. I have a digital cable tuner and the 29/59 problems with HD video create too many issues - with the XBox (now $149), it was cheaper than upgrading the video card....LOL.

The HTPC is hooked up to a 32" running 720P HD - so the 29/59 issue doesn't happen there.

The 29/59 is a "flickering" every 15-30 seconds where it is switching between 1080i and 1080p - some video cards are worse than others with the issue...Never had a problem with DVD/BlueRay - but I didn't try the BlueRay disks prior to switching over to the XBox....wonder if that is what you consider the "studder"?
m
0
l
January 4, 2014 12:03:40 AM

ronintexas said:
I haven't had any issues with DVD/BlueRay playback in WMC - and my HTPC isn't a big machine (AMD quad core - low end budget with 8GB and onboard graphics). The only thing I do when I am playing them to my big screen (60" plasma), it goes through the XBox360. I have a digital cable tuner and the 29/59 problems with HD video create too many issues - with the XBox (now $149), it was cheaper than upgrading the video card....LOL.

The HTPC is hooked up to a 32" running 720P HD - so the 29/59 issue doesn't happen there.

The 29/59 is a "flickering" every 15-30 seconds where it is switching between 1080i and 1080p - some video cards are worse than others with the issue...Never had a problem with DVD/BlueRay - but I didn't try the BlueRay disks prior to switching over to the XBox....wonder if that is what you consider the "studder"?


What I have is a sudden stoppage of video stream while audio is still running, it happens occasionally and at different sections of movies... I think it is hardware for some reason, cuz I tried switching to a different players and codecs.
m
0
l
!