Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is faster RAID 0 or SSD ?

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 26, 2009 12:08:52 AM

Ye That Know,

I'm building a computer for a stock market power user.

He uses software called CQG - their hardware spec's recommend RAID 0 using two 10K RPM SATA drives.

I plan to control both of these drives with one dedicated card - a HighPoint RocketRAID 2300 PCI Express SATA2 card.

-----

But he's wondering if a single SSD alone would be better than the RAID0.

-----

I've been reading all over the internet looking for simple info . . . which is faster the RAID 0 (described above) or the latest and greatest SSD ?

-----

I also worry about the long term performance of the SSD . . . . might degrade such that it no longer keeps up with the software.

Basically I just need a simple quantitative comparison so I can make a decision for this customer.

What do you guys think ?

Thanks for your help,

-Xriva



More about : faster raid ssd

a c 415 G Storage
August 26, 2009 1:06:30 AM

It depends on whether the software benefits most from high sequential transfer rates or random I/O, as well as whether it is write intensive or not.

SSDs have their biggest advantage over hard drives when doing random reads, and their least advantage when doing sequential writes. An SSD would handily beat a hard drive RAID array at the former, but probably not keep up with the latter.

The Intel X25 drives still seem to get the best ratings in terms of sustaining their best-of-class performance over the long-term.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
August 26, 2009 1:19:55 AM

I think your best choise would be 2 WD 640 Blacks in raid 0 and when setting up the array just set the array to 1/2 the disk space. You will come close to the Raptors and beat them on some test. Don't have a pair of raptors to compare, but here is a comparision of my WD 640 Blacks (Raid 0) and My 128 gig SSD in a "cheap" laptop.

Crystal Disk Mark
_____________________ 2 x 640 Gig ____Torqx 128 Gig
_____________________WD 640 Blk______SSD
Seq Read________________192.4_______221.1
Random 512K Read________ 60.6________147.7
Random 4K Read__________0.992_______ 15.15
Seq Write________________200.5_______136.6
Random 512K Write________179.2_______154.6
Random 4K Write________ _3.585______11.43
** in Mbits/Sec NOTE SSD only walks away in 4 K random Reads and Write - But then this is probably more imporatant than the others. Also the new intel is better than my Torqx

Win 7 WEI _______________ 6.0 _______ 7.3
m
0
l
Related resources
August 26, 2009 1:28:22 AM

the answer is according to weather the software requires high bandwith or low access time

for access time nothing beats an ssd, any ssd

and yes, some single high performance ssds can beat a raid o setup in both
m
0
l
a c 172 G Storage
August 26, 2009 1:39:27 AM

How many gb of capacity is necessary for the high performance part of this system?

If it is nominal, perhaps up to 200gb, then I think some sort of SSD configuration will be better.

300gb Velociraptors have a maximum data transfer rate of about 125 mb/sec. Two of them on raid-0 might theoretically approach double that.
You will get the same speed with a good SSD with no latency or mechanical positioning delay.

The large 1tb 7200 drives such as the WD caviar black or the seagate 7200.12 will have a similar transfer rate from the fastest 20% if their capacity.

The Seagate savio sas 15k.7 seems to be the conventional hard drive champ at 122 minimum to 220 maximum.

From some tests I have seen, a add-on raid card, even a very good one does not improve performance measurably when only two drives are attached. It might be better to use that part of the budget for a SSD.

Will a intel X25-E drive at 32gb or 64gb do the job? Would two of them in raid-0 be enough capacity?
Would the less expensive X25-M do the job? It is slower, only in writing.

The life of a SSD is limited by the number of writes to it, not reads. That number is quite high, and I would expect the SSD to be obsolete long before it can accept no more writes. A decade? I do not think performance suffers as it reaches end of life.



m
0
l
a b G Storage
August 26, 2009 3:40:01 AM

geofelt: did you mean the Cheetah when talking about the conventional champ? The Savvio (fractionally) beats it in access time, but the Cheetah takes the overall win.
m
0
l
a c 172 G Storage
August 26, 2009 6:35:45 AM

cjl said:
geofelt: did you mean the Cheetah when talking about the conventional champ? The Savvio (fractionally) beats it in access time, but the Cheetah takes the overall win.

You are absolutely correct. The cheetah 15k.7 is the best data transfer drive I have found. 122 to 204 mb/sec depending on where the reading is done.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
August 26, 2009 3:44:34 PM

xriva said:
Ye That Know,

I'm building a computer for a stock market power user.

He uses software called CQG - their hardware spec's recommend RAID 0 using two 10K RPM SATA drives.

I plan to control both of these drives with one dedicated card - a HighPoint RocketRAID 2300 PCI Express SATA2 card.

-----

But he's wondering if a single SSD alone would be better than the RAID0.

-----

I've been reading all over the internet looking for simple info . . . which is faster the RAID 0 (described above) or the latest and greatest SSD ?

-----

I also worry about the long term performance of the SSD . . . . might degrade such that it no longer keeps up with the software.

Basically I just need a simple quantitative comparison so I can make a decision for this customer.

What do you guys think ?

Thanks for your help,

-Xriva


You might also consider two SSD drives in a RAID 0, it would be expensive but very fast considering you're using a hardware RAID card. To save some wear and tear on the SSD's, consider adding a WD 640 GB HDD and relocate the Windows swap file, temp folders and Internet browser temp files to the WD. Cost would be one third of adding a 300 GB, 10,00 RPM Velociraptor. Create a 80 - 100 GB partition on the WD 640, which would cause it to be a the beginning of the drive, where the access would be extremely fast, then partition the rest of the drive and use it for backups or whatever. I just received a Patriot TorqX M28 SSD and it came with a 128 MB cache, but I haven't started to put my new system together yet, so I don't have any read/write specs to offer ATM.
Do some research and compare the various SSD specs. Some of the OCZ and Patriot drive use the new Indilinx controller, try to stay away from drives that use the JMicron controller. Also, the Patriot SSD's come with a 10 year warranty. See the Patriot SSD here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Pls be advised that there have been complaints about the 2.5 to 3.5 drive bay converter that comes with the Patriot not fitting properly a 3.5 drive bay. Apparently, some of the screw holes are off. There are other 2.5 to 3.5 drive bay converters available at a very low cost, less than $10.00.
m
0
l
September 3, 2009 6:36:28 AM

xriva said:
Ye That Know,

I'm building a computer for a stock market power user.

He uses software called CQG - their hardware spec's recommend RAID 0 using two 10K RPM SATA drives.

I plan to control both of these drives with one dedicated card - a HighPoint RocketRAID 2300 PCI Express SATA2 card.

-----

But he's wondering if a single SSD alone would be better than the RAID0.

-----

I've been reading all over the internet looking for simple info . . . which is faster the RAID 0 (described above) or the latest and greatest SSD ?

-----

I also worry about the long term performance of the SSD . . . . might degrade such that it no longer keeps up with the software.

Basically I just need a simple quantitative comparison so I can make a decision for this customer.

What do you guys think ?

Thanks for your help,

-Xriva


Hi , I think your best choice is using 2x1TB WD10EADS to create array RAID 0 and use RocketRAID 2310, because 2300 is PCIe x1, the bandwidth only about 150M/s is very slowly, and then RR2310 had PCIe x4 about over 600M/s bandwidth. So use RAID 0 is better than SSD because SSD is more expensive.
m
0
l
!