Confused by Speed difference on SSD candidates in my price range

[samcook1]

So i'm looking to purchase two SSDs for a raid 0, and I've narrowed it down to what (I hope) are the best candidates for my price range and size consideration (~$150 each, ~64gb)

My biggest question is why the speed differences between the 60 and 64gb ssds i've chosen are so vastly different (way faster on the 60gb drives)

My second question is I was looking for another pair of eyes to tell give additional advice on which would be the best choice for a raid 0.

60 gb drives:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226151
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227394
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227542
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231377


64gb drives:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139112
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820250001

 

[jonpaul37]

Well, the performance is generally based on Sequential Access Read or Sequential Access Write, the higher the better and Read is more important than Write as your SSD will be doing at least 80% Reading or more, the rest is Write.

So, first question you will have to ask yourself is do you NEED 64 GB or will 60 GB cut it. After that, if they are all roughly the same price, go with the one that has the highest Read/Write Speeds. Then get two of them for Raid 0. Don't worry about which one for Raid, they are all created equal in that matter.

 

[samcook1]

Okay, it just seemed weird to me that the 60 gb SSDs almost across the board had a higher read and write than the 64 gb in the $150 price range. I wanted someone else's opinion because i am paranoid about what potential reasons all of the 60 gb ones could be higher for (marketing trick, etc). I couldnt find an explanation, though i suppose it could be that they are all newer model SSDs (unconfirmed).

At any rate, no the 8gb net difference doesn't matter to me, I was just unsure of what the best buy was because the massive advertised speed difference.

 

[jonpaul37]

best bet is ti check the newegg ratings and read the experiences, go with your gut after that, i know from research, if i was to buy an SSD today i would go with Intel (way expensive) or OCZ.

 

[daship]

Raid 0 is a bad idea since trim is not supported in raid.

 

[MRFS]

> RAID 0 is a bad idea since TRIM is not supported in RAID.


Ditto that:

http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/CS-031491.htm

Intel® Rapid Storage Technology (Intel® RST)

Is there TRIM support for RAID configurations?

Intel® Rapid Storage Technology 9.6 supports TRIM in AHCI mode and
in RAID mode for drives that are not part of a RAID volume.

A defect was filed to correct the information in the Help file
that states that TRIM is supported on RAID volumes.

[end quote]


MRFS

 

[samcook1]

So would it be best to get one that has TRIM or two that do not and raid them?

Also, what is TRIM?

 

[MRFS]

p.s. Although, I have yet to see anyone configure
a software RAID, after setting the BIOS to AHCI
and then formatting 2 x SSDs as "dynamic disks":

http://www.techimo.com/articles/index.pl?photo=149

That may be the case because so many SSD users
load their OS onto their SSDs, and "software RAID" --
like the ones supported by XP -- are not bootable.


MRFS

 

[MRFS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM


MRFS

 

[MRFS]

> So would it be best to get one that has TRIM or two that do not and raid them?

Were you planning to install your OS on a RAID using 2 x SSDs?


MRFS

 

[samcook1]

Sounds like I might be better off getting one larger drive with my money

 

[geofelt]

The 60gb drives will usually reserve more spare capacity to be used for performance.

True, read is mostly what we do, and all SSD's read well.
I would look at a single 128gb ssd or intel's 160gb single drive instead of raid. They perform better because under the covers, they can read more nand chips in parallel. Onboard raid-0 if you will.

The possible performance hit with ssd's comes with writes and how the drive handles it. Those with trim support handle file deletions very efficiently. With a lot of write activity, a drive with few spare cells, or no trim support can get overloaded and perform much worse than a conventional hard drive.

This segment of the marketplace is changing daily. Units are getting better and cheaper. Be prepared for buyer's remorse when third generation units arrive this fall using smaller nand chips. The price/capacity equation may double.

Anandtech has some good articles on SSD's and the pitfalls. You might want to look at their SSD storage benchmark page:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/65

If 80gb will suffice, then the Intel X25-M is a safe pick. If you need more, stretch for the 160gb version. Get the gen2 versions which have trim.

 

[MRFS]

... or OCZ Vertex 2 Extended.


http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=585&Itemid=60

Pros: Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award

+ Delivers highest IOMeter IOPS performance ever recorded!
+ Outstanding 284/277 MBps read/write speed with ATTO
+ SandForce SF-1200 processor supports TRIM, SMART, and RAISE
+ DuraWrite technology extends NAND lifetime
+ Top-level enthusiast operational I/O performance
+ 3-Year OCZ Vertex 2 product warranty
+ 60/120/240/480GB 'Extended' high-speed SSD storage capacity
+ AES-128 Automatic encryption and password data protection
+ Lightweight compact storage solution
+ Resistant to extreme shock impact
+ Low power consumption may extend battery life


Cons:

- Not 3rd-Generation SATA-6.0 compliant
- Lacks integrated USB Mini-B data connection
- Some manufacturers offer five-year warranty


MRFS

 

[samcook1]

The reason i'm buying an SSD (or pair) is because one of the disks my conventional disk raid 0 is going to fail soon I think (im not very concerned about risk on this particular raid). I was wanting to wait until novemberish to upgrade, but i was thinking if it gave me any more trouble I might upgrade sooner. If 3rd generation SSDs are coming out soonish though, I may try to wait.

 

[MRFS]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131610&Tpk=N82E16813131610

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=c300+crucial


It should be wise to wait, because competition
among SATA/6G SSDs should drive prices down a lot.


MRFS

 

[RetiredChief]

(1) Pay more attention to the 4 K random read/writes than Seq.
(2) Vortex-2 and Crucial RealSSD perform better than Intel G2
(3) See link below for comparision Sata3/Sata6 (Has comparision to include Intel G2)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3812/the-ssd-diaries-crucials-realssd-c300
(4) While raid0 improves Seq read/writes it does litle for the more important Random read/writes. Some SSDs degrade considerably without Trim, The RealSSD being one of them (based on comment in article).