Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

1 x SSD vs 2 7200RPM SATA in RAID1....What would be faster?

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 24, 2010 1:14:30 PM

Hi folks. I'm considering buying an SSD to replace my RAID 1 with 2 x 7200RPM Sata drives. Will 1 SSD be faster than the RAID1? I know different hardware will be different but I'm talking in general terms. I have no experience with SSDs at this point but I have little patience waiting for things to happen so I'm wondering maybe if the upgrade woudl be worth it. I would probably just use the SSD for my OS (win7x64) and leave my raid1 for files. Opinions? Thanks.

More about : ssd 7200rpm sata raid1 faster

a c 110 G Storage
December 24, 2010 2:36:49 PM

SSD is faster than regular HDD.

Install the OS on the SSD and I would move the page file (swap file) to the Raid.
m
0
l
December 24, 2010 2:37:51 PM

I know it's faster than an HDD. I'm trying ot find out if 1 ssd would be faster than 2 hdds in a RAID1.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 110 G Storage
December 24, 2010 2:44:52 PM

Yes it would be.
m
0
l
December 24, 2010 2:45:53 PM

Okay. Is there any proof to that explanation? Test results? Thanks for replying.
m
0
l

Best solution

December 24, 2010 3:35:37 PM
Share
a c 110 G Storage
December 24, 2010 3:58:24 PM

Read/Write Speeds

The typical access time for a Flash based SSD is about 35 – 100 micro-seconds

Whereas that of a rotating disk is around 5,000 – 10,000 micro-seconds. That makes a Flash-based SSD approximately 100 times faster than a rotating disk.

HDD data transfer rate at the rate of 80 megabytes per second typically.

SSD data transfer rate at the rate of 170 megabytes per second typically.


http://www.technize.com/ssd-vs-hdd-comparison/
m
0
l
December 24, 2010 6:05:02 PM

I have two Seagate 7200rpm 500gb HDDs in RAID 0, and then I got an SSD and it's significantly faster. I wish I knew where I read it but I saw they compared 10k rpm Raptors against SSDs and I think they only won in sequential writes (the HDDs).
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 11:50:06 AM

Wow. Okay. Thanks for all the replies. Now do you guys put your data on the SSDs or just your OS for speed purposes? I've got too much data for SSDs to really make sense. Thanks again for all this info. Looking forward to maybe purchasing one for my OS. Also, any recommendations or things to look for? I know that TRIM is something that you should have but that's all I really know. Thanks and happy holidays.
m
0
l
a c 127 G Storage
December 26, 2010 12:50:26 PM

Forget about RAID1; that implies that you want to protect your data but RAID1 isn't able to. Instead of RAID1, you should have REAL BACKUPS. Just buying two 2TB Samsung F4 5400rpm drives, one as backup one as primary storage, would be more ideal and protect against alot more dangers than RAID ever could.

No HDD can rival an SSD; even hundred HDDs won't beat an SSD is every respect. And even a trillion of HDDs in RAID0 won't be able to beat a simple SSD in all performance characteristics (though it can in most; but is still limited by access time).

SSD should be used as your system disk, with common random access I/O.

HDD should be used for mass storage, storing large files and acting as backup. This kind of I/O the HDDs are very good in and as such make it their ideal task.
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 1:43:39 PM

sub mesa said:
Forget about RAID1; that implies that you want to protect your data but RAID1 isn't able to. Instead of RAID1, you should have REAL BACKUPS. Just buying two 2TB Samsung F4 5400rpm drives, one as backup one as primary storage, would be more ideal and protect against alot more dangers than RAID ever could.

No HDD can rival an SSD; even hundred HDDs won't beat an SSD is every respect. And even a trillion of HDDs in RAID0 won't be able to beat a simple SSD in all performance characteristics (though it can in most; but is still limited by access time).

SSD should be used as your system disk, with common random access I/O.

HDD should be used for mass storage, storing large files and acting as backup. This kind of I/O the HDDs are very good in and as such make it their ideal task.


I think I made an error in my last message or prior. I'm running RAID0 but from what it sounds like it doesn't matter vs. an SSD..

Okay so which to buy? 32gb seems close to not being quite big enough for the OS. I mean it's enough but it feels like it might not be too far up the line. SSD drive recommendations? Thanks.
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 1:44:32 PM

Quote:
sent you a private message on SSD maintenance, keep it for future reference..


PM looks awesome. Thank you for that. I will read that today. Drive recommendations?
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 4:51:57 PM

I wouldn't get less than a 60GB SSD. Corsair F60 or Mushkin Callisto Deluxe are good for that size. Basically all the Sandforce SSDs are going to be pretty good. Intel is a very stable brand, X25 80GB is great if you can afford a slightly bigger drive.

I'm running an 80gb SSD, with Win 7, and basically all my windows apps from iTunes to Photoshop to Steam (I linked the games onto my RAID0 drives to save that room) and I also have F1 2010 and Fallout New Vegas on it, with 30.4GB to spare. On my media storage (two Seagate 7200rpm 500GB drives in RAID0) I have all my movies, music, and the rest of my games/steam games. You might not have heard of mklink before, search for it here I made a small guide. Really useful for linking specific things to one drive or another... extremely handy for Steam.
m
0
l
December 26, 2010 11:33:11 PM

You need to be careful about "just using it to boot your OS". That's what my SSD was for, at 32GB, but at this point (5 months in), my boot drive's become clogged with a bunch of random stuff that Windows keeps dumping in (DLLs, Temp files, app data, etc.). I'd actually be completely out of room if I didn't keep Junctioning folders into my 1TB HDD, and as it is I have less than 200MB free space. I'm going to be buying a 64GB soon.

To save yourself the trouble, I'd definitely suggest at least 60GB. You can keep your OS and most of your main programs, though I'd suggest moving your data storage and less-used programs to your hard drive.
m
0
l
December 30, 2010 11:02:10 PM

Thanks to all for the responses. I pulled the trigger on the 60GB Vertex 2 Sata. Damn you people! :)  Getting it tomorrow. Looking forward to it. Anyone want to clue me in a little bit on the whole aligning thing? Going to be installing win7 x64. Doesn't sound like it's going to be an issue but I was curious if someone could very briefly explain. Thanks.
m
0
l
December 31, 2010 11:19:32 AM

fuzztreets,

Do a clean install of the OS on the SSD
Install all programs on the SSD that you use most of the time.
Move your Documents folder to the HHD.

Rather than try and parrot steps by step instuctions here are some links to the steps and by doing so, give credit to the person that wrote them.

http://www.overclock.net/ssd/66473 [...] ndary.html

http://www.overclock.net/ssd/66473 [...] ndary.html

Good luck!


m
0
l
January 1, 2011 2:16:39 PM

Emerald said:
SSD is faster than regular HDD.

Install the OS on the SSD and I would move the page file (swap file) to the Raid.


I would leave the page file on the SSD as SSD performs better with these actions than a HDD drive does. The peformance difference is not even close... it's huge. And likely even excessive use constantly would not wear out your SSD before you would replace it because of the natural evolution of computer hardware technology (It becomes obsolete)
m
0
l
January 1, 2011 2:17:41 PM

Quote:
sent you a private message on SSD maintenance, keep it for future reference..



can you copy pasta me ?
m
0
l
January 1, 2011 6:58:38 PM

Mfusick said:
I would leave the page file on the SSD as SSD performs better with these actions than a HDD drive does. The peformance difference is not even close... it's huge. And likely even excessive use constantly would not wear out your SSD before you would replace it because of the natural evolution of computer hardware technology (It becomes obsolete)


That kind of depends on a few things. I won't argue it's faster, but the performance difference for file paging depends on how much your system uses it. If you don't have much RAM then it'll definitely show some nice performance increases. However, in my case as an example I have 8gb RAM, so my file page usage is only 294mb, tho it is set for up to 8gb max size. And definitely programs and such won't be using it (like games or what have you) so for me, there's no reason I can see to put the file paging on the SSD.
m
0
l
January 2, 2011 1:07:25 AM

wolfram23 said:
That kind of depends on a few things. I won't argue it's faster, but the performance difference for file paging depends on how much your system uses it. If you don't have much RAM then it'll definitely show some nice performance increases. However, in my case as an example I have 8gb RAM, so my file page usage is only 294mb, tho it is set for up to 8gb max size. And definitely programs and such won't be using it (like games or what have you) so for me, there's no reason I can see to put the file paging on the SSD.


but if it won't take up too much space... and it makes your pc faster... then I just don't understand why people bother to move it to a legacy standard HDD.

makes no sense to me.
m
0
l
January 3, 2011 5:53:18 PM

^Yeah good info. The funny thing about when I moved my My Documents is that while most games treat it normally, as in the new folder on the media drive is where the game saves go, there's a couple games that are wierd and want to use the default folder on the SSD, namely The Witcher. Odd. Probably 15 other games don't have an issue with it tho.

Also check out mklinks. They're really easy to do. I used them to put Steam on my SSD with all my steam games on the media drive, since Steam likes to keep all the game files within the master folder. Nice work around to keep things fast but offload all that data.
m
0
l
January 12, 2011 11:07:13 PM

Best answer selected by fuzzyreets.
m
0
l
!