kikiking :
Well thanks again! I did not know much about raid at all, as in I forgot that raid 0 gives a capacity boost, but is really unstable, and may cause data loss, blue screen of deaths possibility and other issues.
Can you gives information on what type of capacity space raid 3 gives. I saw your example but can you demonstrate it with.
3/5/ etc vertex 4 128 gig drives, I assumed that raid 0 was the odd number 3/5/7/9/11/13 etc, and raid 0 was even so either 2/4/6/8/10/12 etc.
I specifically want to know about the capacity increases of raid 3, and what it does, and a little more about raid 0. I can probably look it all up later, as was said I do not know much about SSD's and never attempted raid, so do not know much about that either.
In the future v4 may be the choice if the gap is that small between them and the plextor.
it seems you said raid 5 cuts capacity by a percentage, meaning it adds all the capacity then divides it and that is what you end up with, besides other benefits?
Well i'd also have to change my mobo to attempt raid 3 I mean, there is only two 6/gbs sata ports on my z68 gigabyte mobo. it has marvel but I doubt those work with raid... i'd have to wait and see.
only one intel on it /sigh.
The first three levels of RAID that I've looked into much are Raid 0, RAID1, and RAID 5. I've also looked at RAID 10 and 0+1, but they're not important for you.
RAID 0 uses the full capacity of all drives in a system, but if any one drive fails, you lose all data. RAID 0 doesn't decrease the reliability nor stability of each drive, but more drives means more possible points of failures. RAID 0 is a chain that is only as strong as the weakest link.
RAID 1 uses the capacity of only one drive. The more drives in RAID 0, the greater the redundancy and thus the greater reliability of the entire system, but any one drive is no more reliable just because it is now in RAID, having multiple drives simply means that if one drive fails, you don't lose any data. This is a stark contrast to RAID 0.
RAID 5 does something a little different. Instead of improving redundancy to get improved reliability, you get parity. You can look up the RAID wiki and scroll down to RAID 5 to learn about how it does this and what it means if you don't know. From what I understand of it, RAID 5 keeps the full capacity of the system minus one drive. So, with two drives, you get half the capacity. With three drives, you get one third the capacity. With four drives, you get one fourth the capacity and so on. RAID 5 also employs a lot of striping that is similar to RAID 0, but is more complex and due to the parity, much more reliable.
So, two 128GB SSDs in RAID 5 gives you 128GB. Three gives you 256GB. Four gives you 384GB. Five gives you 448GB. Six gives you 512GB and so on. Basically, you get the capacity of the full system minus one drive's worth of capacity. This lost capacity is spent on the parity data and it, like the usable capacity data, is striped across the drives. This incurs huge latency with hard drives (a lot of seek time), but with SSDs, that isn't a problem because their access times are so low.
This is part of why I said that if Vertex 4 had TRIM support in RAID, I'd say to go for it without a doubt if you want a RAID 5 configuration, due to the Vertex 4 having much lower access times than even the Vertex 3 MAXIOPS. Only Marvell's other controllers can come close to the Vertex 4 when it comes to access time and V4 is literally in a different league than the V3 MAXIOPS. That's saying something considering that the V3 MAXIOPS has some pretty darned low access times.
RAID 3 is something that I'll have to look into more before reporting back on.
EDIT: Your right, you only have two Intel SATA 6Gb/s ports, so two SSDs are the best that can be run at full speed. This is definitely one of the few advantages that AMD has over Intel motherboards because AMD has all of their ports as full SATA 6Gb/s and they're much better than Marvell's ports.