I am about to purchase a new SSD for my recently built system. I have been using an old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD (285/275mbps) and intend on buying a Corsair Force GT SSD (555/515mbps).
My intention is to buy 2x Corsair Force GT 120gb and RAID0 them.
However I cannot afford two at the moment and wish to purchase just 1 to start off. If I RAID0 the new Force GT SSD with the old Vertex 2 SSD, would I see increases in performance?
That is, would the Vertex 2 hold the Force GT back or would they increase but not to 100% of the added speeds like 2x Force GTs (ie. 5XX + 5XX = ~10XX).
Would I get 555+285=840mbps read speed (theoretically) out of the two drives? Would they increase but not that much (ie. 650mbps read)? Would I see a decrease in performance to just using the Force GT (ie. 400mbps)?
You should use identical drives in any RAID array for maximum performance.
An array's capacity is based upon the drive with the smallest capacity.
For example, if you RAID-0 a 60GB drive and a 240GB drive you will have 120GB capacity (60GB x 2).
An array's performance is based upon the drive with the slowest Read/Write speeds.
So if you created a RAID-0 array with your Vertex 2 and your Force GT your theoretical maximum Read/Write speeds would be 570/550.
I would not RAID and just use the Force GT as your O/S drive and the Vertex 2 as a storage/data/backup drive.
Agree with above posts on - No to Raid0 for your SSD
I was a BIG proponet for Raid0 when it first came out and up to SSDs.
For My OLD IDE systems, Raid0 was a good performance boost for the OLD, slowwww IDE drives.
Yes, even today, Raid0 still has a place - for HDDs (Reliable ones!!) when working with LARGE files structures such as Video (1 gig -> 35 Gigs for a single file), LARGE spreedsheets, CAD/CAM drawings, and if you do a lot of editing large photo Jpegs. Reason is that (1) requires large space ie 1 TB drives and (2) Takes advantage of higher Sequencial performance offered by Raid0.
With SSDs Sequencial performance Does not improve overall performance of an OS + Program drive. During Loading the operating system and programs it is the 4 K random performance that is important. Very little improvement here even if you double the Sequencial read/writes.
1) You Lose Trim support and must rely soley on Garbage Collection algorthum.
2) Does Not improve access time, therefore only a small gain in the more important Random 4K performance.
3) If a gamer, will Not really load the program faster. When a MAP is required to be loaded, depending on the size, yes it may load faster - ONE Blink of the Eye verse TWO Blinks - LOL), However this is offset by the disadvantous.
Have three systems all with dual SSDs. I use one for OS + Programs and the 2nd one for Overflow and files I frequently use. As stated prior to SSDs all my older systems used 2 HDDs in Raid0. Infact my last Raid0 setup used 2 drives in raid0 for XP and 2 drives in Raid0 for Vista (latter Win 7) UNTILL Ibought my first SSD.
Bottom Line, Yes end up with 2 SSDs, just do not use in raid0.
ONLY exception: For Bragging rights when running benchmarks which are NOT that Relavent in Day-to-day usage.
The Manufs love to state what - High Sequencial read/write performance - Biggy, NOT. And to top that off they use a Benchmark that uses data that is Highly compressable. When benchmarked using AS SSD which uses data that is NOT compressable (closer to real life) you will find that SF22xx based SSDs tend to NOT hit the benchmark advertized - for the agillity III the drop is prety dramatic.
Recommend SSD: Samsung 830, Curcial M4, and Intel 510/520 If Not significantly higher priced.