Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should i raid 0 two different SSD's

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 18, 2012 11:31:32 AM

I have a 120GB Cosrair Force series GT drive which i understand is Asynchronous memory, runs really well.
However i recently bought a Kingston Hyper 3k also 120GB, I am considering Raiding them both on striped array (redundancy is not something im worried about as it will only be for my OS, Games, Software.)

Was wondering if anyone has tried raiding two different types of SSD and whether it wil give a big performance increase ?

Cheers in advance :) 

More about : raid ssd

June 18, 2012 1:04:25 PM

I was actually about to post a similar question asking about how much of a performance increase this would give me as well...

However i did not think you COULD raid two different drives together!

If so, that is awesome!!!! someone answer this man we both need the answer =)
a c 542 G Storage
June 18, 2012 1:21:00 PM

A RAID-0 array's capacity is based upon he drive with the smallest size.
So if you RAID-0 a 60GB drive and a 256GB drive the total capacity of your RAID array will be 120GB (60 x 2).

A RAID-0 array's performance is based upon the drive with the slowest Read/Write speeds.

There is no fault tolerance in a RAID-0 array so if one of your drives die then you lose all of your data.

Theoretically your Read/Write speeds should double with 2 drives in RAID-0, but due to SATA protocol overhead the real-world increase is in the 90% range.

You will probably not notice any real-world difference in performance in gaming with 2 SSDs in RAID-0.

It's best to just use the 2 drives separately.
Related resources
a c 122 G Storage
June 18, 2012 1:26:50 PM

On a desktop PC, unless you are using large databases, video editing or other data intensive apps weighing heavily on I/O, I wouldn't bother RAID two identical SSD's or HD's for that matter. Yes, you will see a definite increase in benchmark performance but nothing significant in any regular desktop applications or gaming. Nothing has really changed in this respect over the last decade (well other than the remarks about controller / software losses) .... old THG post below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_0#RAID_0

RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.

RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[1][2]


http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2101
"We were hoping to see some sort of performance increase in the game loading tests, but the RAID array didn't give us that. While the scores put the RAID-0 array slightly slower than the single drive Raptor II, you should also remember that these scores are timed by hand and thus, we're dealing within normal variations in the "benchmark".

Our Unreal Tournament 2004 test uses the full version of the game and leaves all settings on defaults. After launching the game, we select Instant Action from the menu, choose Assault mode and select the Robot Factory level. The stop watch timer is started right after the Play button is clicked, and stopped when the loading screen disappears. The test is repeated three times with the final score reported being an average of the three. In order to avoid the effects of caching, we reboot between runs. All times are reported in seconds; lower scores, obviously, being better. In Unreal Tournament, we're left with exactly no performance improvement, thanks to RAID-0

If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.

Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."


http://www.techwarelabs.com/articles/hardware/raid-and-...
".....we did not see an increase in FPS through its use. Load times for levels and games was significantly reduced utilizing the Raid controller and array. As we stated we do not expect that the majority of gamers are willing to purchase greater than 4 drives and a controller for this kind of setup. While onboard Raid is an option available to many users you should be aware that using onboard Raid will mean the consumption of CPU time for this task and thus a reduction in performance that may actually lead to worse FPS. An add-on controller will always be the best option until they integrate discreet Raid controllers with their own memory into consumer level motherboards."

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1001325
"However, many have tried to justify/overlook those shortcomings by simply saying "It's faster." Anyone who does this is wrong, wasting their money, and buying into hype. Nothing more."

http://jeff-sue.suite101.com/how-raid-storage-improves-...
"The real-world performance benefits possible in a single-user PC situation is not a given for most people, because the benefits rely on multiple independent, simultaneous requests. One person running most desktop applications may not see a big payback in performance because they are not written to do asynchronous I/O to disks. Understanding this can help avoid disappointment."

http://www.scs-myung.com/v2/index. [...] om_content
"What about performance? This, we suspect, is the primary reason why so many users doggedly pursue the RAID 0 "holy grail." This inevitably leads to dissapointment by those that notice little or no performance gain.....As stated above, first person shooters rarely benefit from RAID 0.__ Frame rates will almost certainly not improve, as they are determined by your video card and processor above all else. In fact, theoretically your FPS frame rate may decrease, since many low-cost RAID controllers (anything made by Highpoint at the tiem of this writing, and most cards from Promise) implement RAID in software, so the process of splitting and combining data across your drives is done by your CPU, which could better be utilized by your game. That said, the CPU overhead of RAID0 is minimal on high-performance processors."

Even the HD manufacturers limit RAID's advantages to very specific applications and non of them involves gaming:

http://westerndigital.com/en/products/raid/http://weste...
June 18, 2012 2:17:39 PM

Dereck47 said:
A RAID-0 array's capacity is based upon he drive with the smallest size.
So if you RAID-0 a 60GB drive and a 256GB drive the total capacity of your RAID array will be 120GB (60 x 2).

A RAID-0 array's performance is based upon the drive with the slowest Read/Write speeds.

There is no fault tolerance in a RAID-0 array so if one of your drives die then you lose all of your data.

Theoretically your Read/Write speeds should double with 2 drives in RAID-0, but due to SATA protocol overhead the real-world increase is in the 90% range.

You will probably not notice any real-world difference in performance in gaming with 2 SSDs in RAID-0.

It's best to just use the 2 drives separately.


thanks for the help guys! i guess i wont waste my time since i am strictly a gamer who only benchmarks occasionally to verify things are running at advertised speeds and whatnot.

!