Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is it okay to run SSD's in RAID 0 without TRIM

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 23, 2012 6:07:25 PM

Hi.

I've got two of these babies:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1669/2/

(I'm not too sure if I can post links etc. If not, then I'll remove it)

My SSD has TRIM and garbage collection. I think the garbage collection is built it.
If so, is it okay to run these in RAID 0?

Thanks.

More about : run ssd raid trim

a b G Storage
January 23, 2012 8:06:33 PM

those drives use the SF-2281 controller and do not rely on trim for immediate recovery as other controllers do.

It would be better to use logged off idle time(with sleep disabled so power remains to the drives) to allow garbage collection to clean things up.
January 23, 2012 8:39:35 PM

groberts101 said:
those drives use the SF-2281 controller and do not rely on trim for immediate recovery as other controllers do.

It would be better to use logged off idle time(with sleep disabled so power remains to the drives) to allow garbage collection to clean things up.


You're a legend!

You've given me piece of mind!
Related resources
January 23, 2012 8:42:54 PM

groberts101 said:
those drives use the SF-2281 controller and do not rely on trim for immediate recovery as other controllers do.

It would be better to use logged off idle time(with sleep disabled so power remains to the drives) to allow garbage collection to clean things up.


Sorry to ask. How do I enable this feature? Should I just disable my power savings on my system(just done that)?
a b G Storage
January 23, 2012 8:53:07 PM

couple of way to retain power during logoff idles. First is to set the sleep state in the bios from the typically defaulted S3 to S1. Then the system will keep power to the drive during sleeps and let GC function accordingly.

Next and more desirable method is to just keep the bios S3 defaults and set the W7 power options to never sleep and to never shut the drive down in the advanced section of power mgmt. You only need do this a time or two per week in typical workflows though and can set it to sleep the drive any other time where recovery is not required.

In the end.. every usage is quite different and the specific workload(writeload actually) will determine what's best to maintain fresh-like speeds on these particular controllers. I'd say try 1 overnight per week and add another if things seem to be slowing down or latency seems to be climbing when heavily multitasking the drive.

Also never a bad idea to idle immediately after heavy benchmarking or atypically heavy writes to the drive in any one session(such as streaming vids/music would do). Just start off with limited sleeps and work your way up if needed. Most will never need more than 1 or 2 nights per week though.

hope that helps
a c 289 G Storage
January 24, 2012 3:24:14 PM

Of all the people that I would rather not contradict on this topic, groberts is at the top of the list. He has the experience. BUT

Don't use RAID of any sort unless you have a problem that it will solve, or want to do benchmarks. It introduces complications that you don't need most of the time. RAID 0 is not a true RAID, as the failure of a single drive loses all the data in the array.

Please be kind to me and look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom... and here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/278576-32-raid .
a c 283 G Storage
January 24, 2012 4:13:27 PM

This is a public forum. Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinions and ideas.

I am inclined to agree with WyomingKnott. In fact, instead of two 120GB ssd's in a RAID0 array, I recommend a single 256GB ssd. That's what I did. It works for me since I don't do anything that requires ssd's in a RAID array.

If you just want bragging rights, to experiment, or to perform some sort of complicated task that could make use of ssd's in a RAID array, then go for it. Otherwise a RAID array is not necessary.
January 24, 2012 4:22:36 PM

WyomingKnott said:
Of all the people that I would rather not contradict on this topic, groberts is at the top of the list. He has the experience. BUT

Don't use RAID of any sort unless you have a problem that it will solve, or want to do benchmarks. It introduces complications that you don't need most of the time. RAID 0 is not a true RAID, as the failure of a single drive loses all the data in the array.

Please be kind to me and look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom... and here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/278576-32-raid .


Actually I don't mind the risk. The only data I use is always backed up. I've noticed a HUGE improvement whilst playing games. Loading times are excellent. In all, I'm happy with my RAID 0 setup.
a c 353 G Storage
January 24, 2012 5:01:11 PM

let me know a year from now.
1) agree with groberts101 on CG w/SF22xx controller, it is better than my choice of drives (How it is implimented) - The M4 and the Samsung 830.
2) I am a big fan of Raid0 - (A) for older systems as the OS + Programs + data. In fact I'm currently working on two computers 10+ years old. Both with Raid0, one is so old it uses the KR7A chipset for IDE raid. (B) For newer systems when a lot of work is with LARGE files (ie > 1 Gig) or you work a lot editing High res Photos. Preferably using HDDs vs SSDs.

3) I dought you would see much difference in real life when using two SSDs in raid0 vs two SSDs where one is for OS +Programs and the other is for "over flow " and for files most often used EXCLUDING large Video files. A blu-ray video file can be 13 ->30+ gigs for a single file, a good canidate for High Sequencial performance provided by raid0.

A) Raid0s primary benifit is in its Sequencial preformance with is consirebly improve; How ever of OS + programs this is the LEAST important aspect - What is Improtant is 4 K random and access time and here raid0 offers little improvement. As I stated I do use Raid0, but have 3 systems all with a pair of SSDs - none are in raid0 - Have one setup as OS + Programs and the 2nd as a "scratch/often used files.

B) This is probably my biggest concern with Raid0 for SSDs - Long term effects (yr or 2 downstream). The SF22xx has not been out their long enough and with enough users to truely determine suitability - But I guess you can always RMA the drive if it bricks in a yr or two. The reliability in the corporate world is somewhat mixed. There use to be a poster here who indicated that where he worked there was a much higher failure rate than "home users", My son indicated that they had a much higher failure rate with SSD that were used in TVs to provide internat capabilities, and I'm having to deal with a SLC SSD that is probmatic after about a year ( In flight hardware so will have to revert back to a mechanical HDD. Hey I have 10 SSDs and my Intel G1 is still working - but Not ready to convert to Raid0 for SSDs.

So Yes I agree with Johnny and WyomingKnott.
!