Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Need Advice for new HD (RAID0 Use)

Last response: in Storage
Share
a b G Storage
January 19, 2010 9:30:35 PM

I have a 1TB Seagate 7200.12 right now. I want to set up a RAID0 configuration after doing it with 2 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3's on another set-up. Here's my dilemma that I need feedback on...


  • Do I go with another Seagate 7200.12 1TB and have a 2TB RAID0?
  • Or do I leave the original 7200.12 alone (for storage, etc) and go with two 500GB Samsungs in RAID0 for the boot drive & programs?

    Either way I have 2TB of storage, only in one scenario all is RAID0, the other it's 50/50...

  • If I go with the second Seagate, I notice it looks like MicroCenter has it for $10 less than NewEgg, but the model is different. Is this just because it's retail packaging? Here are the specs from Seagate.com:

    FROM NEWEGG.COM


    FROM MICRO CENTER
  • More about : advice raid0

    a c 172 G Storage
    January 20, 2010 12:15:15 AM

    I think the microcenter drive may be an older version which is why it is priced lower. I don't see it in their current product catalog.

    I would use one 1tb drive for OS and programs, and the other for storage.

    Raid-0 does not seem to do much good except for large sequential files and synthetic benchmarks. Not for the OS or games. Keep it simple.

    If you can, try it both ways and tell us how you do.
    m
    0
    l
    January 20, 2010 12:42:28 AM

    If it's for OS or applications, the answer is: no Raid, it's slower than a single disk. Only Ssd is faster.
    m
    0
    l
    Related resources
    a b G Storage
    January 20, 2010 12:47:33 AM

    Thanks for the reply geofelt.

    Ah, I see - I guess what was leading me towards the RAID0 set-up for my OS / Programs more, was my research on SSD's. Looking at the SSD article on here, I took the Crystal Disk results and picked the top & low SSD, and the VelociRaptor and threw in my RAID0 500GB x 2 set-up. Since the results were pretty close, I figured it was a better investment (in terms of $/GB).

    Sequential Writes & Reads were just as good if not better than the Intel SSD, as were Random 512 Writes.

    Although, Random Reads couldn't compare.



    m
    0
    l
    a b G Storage
    January 20, 2010 12:49:25 AM

    Pointertovoid said:
    If it's for OS or applications, the answer is: no Raid, it's slower than a single disk. Only Ssd is faster.


    Thanks Pointertovoid - I don't know all the mechanics behind it, but what makes RAID0 no good for OS & Apps, why is it slower?

    Thanks,
    Steve
    m
    0
    l
    a c 172 G Storage
    January 20, 2010 12:54:32 AM

    Do not look at synthetic benchmarks. The access patterns are completely different from what you will be doing in the real world.

    A "trim" capable SSD is probably the best option for an OS today. The $/gb sucks, but there is nothing faster. Intel now has a 40gb ssd for $115:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    The 80gb and 160gb gen2 drives are faster but are pricey.
    m
    0
    l
    a c 172 G Storage
    January 20, 2010 1:02:51 AM

    steve9207 said:
    Thanks Pointertovoid - I don't know all the mechanics behind it, but what makes RAID0 no good for OS & Apps, why is it slower?

    Thanks,
    Steve

    Raid-0 splits your data into stripes of some size(say 64k) between the two drives. The OS typically reads and writes small amounts of data randomly so it usually only goes to one drive anyway. Raid-0 helps if you are reading large blocks of data consecutively because the reads can be done concurrently to both drives at the same time. Raid-0 will hurt if the os needs to read both drives to satisfy one request.

    On balance, it neither helps nor hurts much, so why bother?

    Go to www.storagereview.com at this link: http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=Single...
    There are some specific applications that will benefit, but
    gaming is not one of them. Even if you have an application which reads one input file sequentially, and writes
    it out, you will perform about as well by putting the input on one drive, and the output on the other.
    m
    0
    l
    a b G Storage
    January 21, 2010 9:57:28 PM

    geofelt said:
    Do not look at synthetic benchmarks. The access patterns are completely different from what you will be doing in the real world.

    A "trim" capable SSD is probably the best option for an OS today. The $/gb sucks, but there is nothing faster. Intel now has a 40gb ssd for $115:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    The 80gb and 160gb gen2 drives are faster but are pricey.


    Thank you for the great info & links...

    What do you think about this SSD (OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT30G 30GB MLC) for $105?

    And why would someone go with this OCZ Vertex Turbo OCZSSD2-1VTXT30G 30GB for $140 when you can double the size up to 60GB for $170? OCZ 60GB and and get nearly the same read / write times of 230MB/s / 135MB/s... What am I missing here?

    If I go with the 30GB version - is it worth the extra $35 to go up to the Turbo series?

    Thanks again,
    Steve
    m
    0
    l

    Best solution

    a c 172 G Storage
    January 21, 2010 10:26:44 PM

    There are several chatacteristics, other than capacity which determine the value of a SSD.

    1) SLC vs. MLC. SLC= single level, Mls-multi lefel, Single is faster, and lasts longer so it is more expensive.
    2) The internal controller. Some are smarter and more efficient than others. This particularly comes into play with writes. A SSD with trim support is better.

    New drives are appearing daily, so look to the reviews, particularly those that measure performance of actual usage after the drive has been filled.

    If you want a safe choice get a gen 2 version of any of the intel SSD's. I think kingston makes them under license from intel also.
    They are trim enabled and have a good intel controller.

    As to OCZ, I think there are some good drives in the more expensive class. You might want to visit the OCZ forums to get more info from their users.
    Share
    a b G Storage
    January 22, 2010 7:30:35 PM

    Best answer selected by steve9207.
    m
    0
    l
    a b G Storage
    January 22, 2010 7:41:38 PM

    geofelt said:
    There are several chatacteristics, other than capacity which determine the value of a SSD.

    1) SLC vs. MLC. SLC= single level, Mls-multi lefel, Single is faster, and lasts longer so it is more expensive.
    2) The internal controller. Some are smarter and more efficient than others. This particularly comes into play with writes. A SSD with trim support is better.

    New drives are appearing daily, so look to the reviews, particularly those that measure performance of actual usage after the drive has been filled.

    If you want a safe choice get a gen 2 version of any of the intel SSD's. I think kingston makes them under license from intel also.
    They are trim enabled and have a good intel controller.

    As to OCZ, I think there are some good drives in the more expensive class. You might want to visit the OCZ forums to get more info from their users.


    Thanks for all the help with this geofelt!

    The SLC's are out of my price range. I did quite a bit of reading & research last night & today. I settled on the OCZ Vertex 30GB. I was able to pick it up on sale at MicroCenter for $100 (after MIR), Newegg is currently at $130 after MIR.

    I was able to read some good feedback on the OCZ forums and some independent tests. It also supports TRIM with the newest Firmware. As you mentioned, I was able to find a test where they tested it new & full...

    I'm going to try to install it later today & will report back my feedback (fortunately, I recently built my i7-860 so I don't really have much on there, so I don't mind starting with a fresh install)... How so much changed from my original post where I was considering which HD to get for a RAID0 set-up :D 

    On a side note; I kind of wrote off SSD's recently (due to cost), but with prices dropping and new stuff coming out, I think it could do wonders for my laptop once the 120GB are more within reach...



    m
    0
    l
    a b G Storage
    January 23, 2010 2:39:47 AM

    Got the drive going - I had a slight problem in the beginning. Long story short, I did a fresh install twice (the second time was after switching the SSD to SATA0 port that my original boot drive was plugged into).

    Anyways, here are some real time specs I ran (I meant to also test how long it took MS Office to load, but forgot to - but it does open instantly now). This is on an Intel i7-860, Biostar T5XE MoBo, 4GB Dual Channel G. Skill 1600 RAM.



    Here are the Cyrstal Disk Mark results:

    OCZ Vertex 30GB (Boot Drive)




    Seagate 7200.12 1TB (Storage Drive)

    m
    0
    l
    !