I just read the may article about best SSD for the money. Looks like I could get two 16gb and put it in raid (total of 32gb storage), or I could buy one 40gb drive. Both situations would cost about $100. What is the better choice?
I do belive that setting up SSD's in raid 0 does not improve read and write speeds. I've tried asking the community but no responses yet.
Based on that and the fact that bigger ssds have better speeds I would Opt for the 40gb model.
SSDs in raid 0 would improve performance. However I'm not sure how significant it would be at such a low capacity.
Personally I'd just go for the single drive:
1) The drive is slightly bigger (8GB is enough for an OS so don't knock this small difference)
2) Trim under raid 0 can be tricky or impossible to configure depending on the raid controller
3) Obviously not implementing raid 0 means you have less chance of data loss
1) You get more capacity. Even 32gb is not that much for the OS and apps. Windows-7 32 bit takes 13gb without any space trimming.
2) Raid-0 will give you better sequential benchmark performance. Unfortunately, that is not what the normal desktop user does. Small random reads and writes are the norm, and raid-0 does not help there. I changed from 2 Intel X25-M 80gb drives to a single X25-M 160gb drive. My perception was that the single drive was just as responsive, if not more so. Larger drives will have more nand chips that are accessed in parallel. Sort of an internal raid-0.
3) Some drives will depend on "trim" to keep free space available. You will lose that with raid-0. As the drive gets filled, performance will degrade. A 16gb drive will definitely get full quickly.