Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Is raid0-ing SSDs necessary?

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 2, 2010 2:38:37 PM

I am in the position of choosing between 1 intel x25-m 160gb ssd (r/w = 270/100) or two 80gb ssds (of the same series, r/w = 250/70), both options have the same price.

If we ignore the increase in write speed, is the increase in read speed noticeable in day-to-day applications? SSDs make everything load practically instantly - or so I hear, so is your average user going to notice a change between 270 and 500 mb/s?

More about : raid0 ing ssds

a c 98 G Storage
July 2, 2010 5:45:49 PM

After all the help sub mesa and I have provided, you still have questions? :lol: 

I would go for the single drive. Yes, mine are in RAID 0, but I wish I would have got the 80GB originally. The lack of TRIM which my system doesn't seem to mind, and the partitioning up of the drive to use only 80% of them which I don't mind either, as my OS drive only uses 21+GB of the "64GB" available, make it all too complicated.

sminlal and I both think along the lines of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

You will be impressed with the loads speeds of any SSD, so KISS. Once you get that fast, any faster is really humanlly unnoticeable.

Do you really need 160GB for a OS and Program drive? To clean the SSD "clean" only install the OS and Progams to it. Put all your data/media on a large fast HDD.

And most importantly, are you installing it to a Intel (X58 or P55) mobo? AMD boards don't support ACHI nor TRIM.

Good luck tt!
a c 98 G Storage
July 2, 2010 6:05:58 PM

In this post: OCZ Vertex 2 60gb...sminlal says:

Quote:
In my personal opinion you're probably better off getting a larger drive than trying to RAID-0 two smaller drives together. The drives themselves essentially use RAID-0 internally to access multiple channels of flash chips. For example, the Intel 160GB SSD essentially has two 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 inside it. There are some bottlenecks because of the single controller (vs. two if you use two 80GB drives), but IMHO its not enough to worry about having to deal with RAID and loosing TRIM functionality.

Remember that RAID-0 can improve the transfer rates, but it doesn't improve access times, which is the most important metric for an SSD.


Related resources
July 2, 2010 8:21:50 PM

After al the help sub mesa and I have provided, you still have questions? :lol: said:
After al the help sub mesa and I have provided, you still have questions? :lol: 


Unfortunately, yes. With SSDs, you pay for performance, so it *absolutely* has to deliver. I'm about to make the purchase though, you won't see much of me here soon... hopefully.

Do you really need 160GB for a OS and Program drive? said:
Do you really need 160GB for a OS and Program drive?


Unfortunately, yes. I have a lot of programs, and games too. When I started researching, my initial plan was to get two 128gb Kingston V-series drives for around $500

For example, the Intel 160GB SSD essentially has two 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 inside it said:
For example, the Intel 160GB SSD essentially has two 80GB SSDs in RAID 0 inside it


If that is true, then why doesn't the 160Gb drive operate at 500 read, 140 write? (I reference here to show that two 80's raided will effectively double write speed). We can excuse the 500 read thanks to SATA3Gb/s limitations, but not the write, especially since write is the (minor) drawback of intel drives. I suspect that the controller can't handle that kind of speed. I read somewhere that the reason why intel writes are so slow is because of a trade-off for IOps, any truth to that?

I'd go with the 160 even if it was just the write speed that was increased, but again, the two options have *exactly* the same price for me, and I'd rather have a write of 140-150 over 100. Keep in mind that a VRs write at 100-ish, as does my current drive. I will be the first to agree that reads are way more important than writes, however saving files? That's writes. I work with some large (300-600mb) files and it would be nice if they saved quickly... and they are scheduled to autosave as well.

... IOps are increased in raid, and we all love IOps...

... Access time isn't though, but then again, I haven't seen any way to decrease access time, although I'm not sure why you would want to... they're measuring it in microseconds, geez!

And most importantly, are you installing it to a Intel (X58 or P55) mobo? said:
And most importantly, are you installing it to a Intel (X58 or P55) mobo?


Asus P6X58D-E here :D  I'm all set for raid, I could even do it with SATA6, not that there's anything out there that can *really* use it.

Oh, and one more thing to note... Sub messa says that even if you have trim, you still cannot *heavily* use your ssd without seeing performance degradation - and thus need to use a spare partition. The way I see it, I'll need to use one regardless of what I do, so I might as well go with raid.

Best solution

a c 98 G Storage
July 2, 2010 8:50:31 PM
Share

Sounds like you got a hold of it. You now know what you want, and why. And you know how to do it, too.

Best of luck. Cheers for this Holiday weekend!

BTW: As for why a 160GB isn't spec'd to 2-80GB in RAID...RAID isn't exactly double, as the don't scale that way. The RAID controller has to do more operations than a non-RAID (in simple layman's terms). But, I thought that the iX25-M 80GBb was 2 iX25-V 40GB in RAID 0. My specs are lower than the 80GB, but not by half. iX25-V40 r/w: 170/35; iX25-M80 r/w: 250/70; iX25-M160 r/w: 250/100.
July 3, 2010 2:47:56 AM

foscooter said:


BTW: As for why a 160GB isn't spec'd to 2-80GB in RAID...RAID isn't exactly double, as the don't scale that way. The RAID controller has to do more operations than a non-RAID (in simple layman's terms). But, I thought that the iX25-M 80GBb was 2 iX25-V 40GB in RAID 0. My specs are lower than the 80GB, but not by half. iX25-V40 r/w: 170/35; iX25-M80 r/w: 250/70; iX25-M160 r/w: 250/100.


A 40 gig is r/w of 170/35 and yours is what? 350/70? I call that good scaling... Heck, It may even be slightly *above* double the speed.

I think I've made my choice when it comes to ssds... I'm off to research some quiet video cards next... I hear the HD5770's idle at 16 watts! Silence is golden. :D 

And also, I have a recommendation for you... not only do intel's SSDs scale well in performance, they also seem to scale well in price.

... so if you ever find 80gigs not enough, just throw in another 40 or two and you'll be making that array even faster.
July 3, 2010 2:48:05 AM

Best answer selected by tom thumb.
!