Solved

1 X25-M 80GB or 2 X25-V 40GB in RAID 0 ??

Which is better for fast desktop running XP:
1 - X-25-M 80 GB or 2 X-25-V 40 GB in RAID 0?

Base drives:
X-25M-80GB = <250MB/Sec Read, <70MB/s Write
X-25V-40GB = <170MB/Sec Read, <35MB/s Write

Assuming 15% overhead in a RAID 0, would it be reasonable to expect 2 X-25V to be:
Read: 170X2 - 15% = 289M/s
Write: 35X2 - 15% = 59M/s

Plus 2 X-25Vs are around $50 less than 1 X-25M.

I'm tempted to order 2 X25Vs. Faulty thinking? Or, would it be better to just have 1 X-25M-80GB, having the ability to use TRIM with Win7, etc.?
7 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 80gb 40gb raid
  1. RAID can improve the transfer rate of the drives, but not the access time. It's the access time you pay big bucks for when you buy an SSD, so I'd pay more attention to any difference in access time between these drive, not how fast they can transfer large files.
  2. Best answer
    I, personally, would wait for TRIM support in a RAID setup (if it ever happens). I would hate to invest a lot of money into a SSD RAID array, just to watch the performance slow down over time.

    Just my .02.
  3. sminlal said:
    RAID can improve the transfer rate of the drives, but not the access time. It's the access time you pay big bucks for when you buy an SSD, so I'd pay more attention to any difference in access time between these drive, not how fast they can transfer large files.


    Great point!

    Your insight prompted me to look it up.

    Latency:
    X-25M 80G = 85 microseconds read / 115 write
    X-25V 40G = 65/110

    Random IO per second:
    X-25M = 35000 4k reads per min / 3500 4k writes per min
    X-25V = 25000 reads / 2500 writes

    The cheaper drive is faster in terms of latency but slower in terms of random IOs / sec...
  4. On my X25-M spec sheet dated July 2009 the latencies are listed as 65 usec read / 85 usec write.
  5. sminlal said:
    On my X25-M spec sheet dated July 2009 the latencies are listed as 65 usec read / 85 usec write.


    I accidentally quoted the G1 version -- instead of the G2. You are correct.

    It's quickly seeming like the X-25M G2 is the way to go -- latency, IOPS, Trim (instead of 2 X-25V in RAID0)...

    I appreciate everyone's feedback.

    Thanks.
  6. Best answer selected by AA5B.
  7. AA5B said:
    I accidentally quoted the G1 version -- instead of the G2. You are correct.

    It's quickly seeming like the X-25M G2 is the way to go -- latency, IOPS, Trim (instead of 2 X-25V in RAID0)...

    I appreciate everyone's feedback.

    Thanks.



    Great thread thanks guys for you research! I love toms I'm always on but I'm a bit baffled by some things (ok, maybe most things, but I know how a PC goes together)
Ask a new question

Read More

NAS / RAID Desktops Windows XP Storage