SSD vs Raid ?

Well cheap SSDs have trouble doing random writes. If you use just for os you'll probably be fine. If you use it for everything you might get lag/hangs.

Notice on the SSD drives there is "NO REFUNDS" if you dont like it to bad for you.

Maybe, but what whit the speed ? spec arnt write the same way ... How to compare ? sorry about maybe silly question but i wanna know !!

SSD and HDD:

Average read:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/flash-ssd-charts/Ave...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3-5-hard-drive-chart...

Average write:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/flash-ssd-charts/Ave...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3-5-hard-drive-chart...

Random access:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/flash-ssd-charts/Ran...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3-5-hard-drive-chart...

Random access is the main point where SSD is faster. There is no physical pin to move across a physical disk.

so what i can tell about those spec is that a SSD is WAY faster for Acces time, but not that much for read or write.

For an OS its good ? Im XP user, so a 32g SSD would be NICE to run my XP ?

THX for chart !

It's not "access time" but "random access time," random is the key word. It means that a hdd will have to mechanically move its pin from one part of the disk, read a small piece, then move to another one. That takes time. SSD does not have to do this. If it's continuous read/write, hdd is almost as fast as ssd, or faster, depending on model. Everyday computing involves a lot of random access, which is where ssd has an advantage. When you copy a large file, hdd is just as fast.

Size depends on your needs. I use two hdds, one 1tb, the other 1.5tb, and 32gb just won't cut it. But it may be enough for you. The XP os itself should take under 1gb. But a typical new game takes 7gb or more each when installed.

Some tell that installing a game to a SSD can make it freeze. @ If you use it for everything you might get lag/hangs. @ just said roadrunner197069.

I might use it for Windows only or i can safely install game to it ? or just stay with 2 Raid 0 16mb cache 7200 rpm disk ?

I don't see how Windows is different than games. If you get lag/hang on anything, it means the drive is defective. Yes, you can install the game on it. If anything, RAID is less reliable than SSD, with higher incidence of data loss/corruption.

Consider SSD for core system, large 1-1.5tb drives for storage.

THX alot milord ! appreciate it !

SSD isn't ready to be used yet. Although raid 0 and SSD together should solve the problem a bit for write speeds.

The best configuration if you can afford it would be a fast SSD for OS and everyday use, like surfing the net, watching photos etc (small files, random access time more important) and have a RAID configuration for video files, games, etc (larger files, transfer rates more important).

Not really - the problem is extremely long lags, not data rates. I wouldn't buy any cheap MLC SSD's for any computer. Good SLC drives don't have the same problem, but they are quite expensive.

Today, the only problem-free SSD seems to be the Intel one. It starts at about $600. The write problem with all the others seems to be truly annoying.
Read this Anandtech article:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

In time, and probably sooner, the SSD problem will be resolved, and with competition, the prices will drop. In the mean time, the Velociraptor DOES make a difference, and is about as good as it gets. I love mine.

That isn't quite true - the SLC SSD's tend to be both trouble free and amazingly fast. The intel is the only trouble free MLC drive though.

Here's one such example of an SLC SSD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

yeah i just read some verybad reviews about some cheap 100$ - ssd. Seems to be a good idea to wait untill better one.

There are a few people who think they are great, and a lot more people who think they are not that great. Whenever I see a piece of hardware that has so much negative feedback, and such a high price tag, common sense tells me to back away for now.

The lag comes from not being able to write properly I believe. I read reviews, and everyone that's actually had one, said the same thing over and over. Extremely long lags, but raid 0 helps this.

The higher grade ssd's are pricey, like I said, they aren't ready to be used yet. For mainstream that is.

One of the problem with SSDs is the swap file, Windows 7 will have a setting especialy for use with SSDs but at this point, virtual memory is the bane of SSDs as it means lots of random writes.
Also, it will shorten your SSDs life to use it for swap, so place your swap file on another (traditionnal) HD or use enough RAM not to have a swap file.
BTW RAID-0 is totally overrated unless you do Video editting or other large file stuff that needs high transfer speed (then you would also need two arrays). What it realy does is multiply your chances of data loss by the number of drives on the array and gives you a worst random access time than that of a single drive.
Mostly it's for the Benchmarktubators who like to boast high transfer rate numbers more than actual real world performance.

XP will still go to the Windows swap file EVEN IF there is available RAM:
so, move your swap file aka "paging" to a ramdisk, if you want really fast paging.


MRFS

xcopy X:\folder Y:\folder /s/e/v/d/l

... works MUST faster when both X: and Y: are RAID 0 arrays,
less fast when only one drive letter is on a RAID 0 array.

The "/l" switch only reads filename entries, not the entire files,
then it saves those entries in XP file buffers without changing
any files in the target folder.


MRFS