RAID0 NEW SSD AND OLD SSD

Also the force GT is Synchronous NAND. I do not know that the Vertex 2 is but I am assuming Asynchronous NAND.

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.

Thank you this is the information I was after. Shortly after I posted I found a similar post on another forum that said this, so thanks for confirming it.

I guess I will just have to save for 2x Force GTs.

Thanks alot.

You do know you lose TRIM when you RAID SSDs right? There is really no reason at all to run them in RAID.

Also know that corsair SSD's have terrible reliability issues. Read over their forums before purchasing.

RAID0 of SSDs is a bad idea. Even if you have identical ones.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/kigsto...
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

(The latter two contain rants from me; I won't be offended if you don't read them.)

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.

With Raid0:
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.