Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

SSD or SSD RAID 0

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 3, 2012 4:39:13 PM

Hello everyone! I've been trying to find an answer to this for a while. Wasn't lucky enough in doing so. So now I'm here asking all of you. I recently purchased my 1st pair of SSD drives. Love em. Loading times on BF3 is more then enough of a reason to buy one of these things. They are awesome. Anyway. I purchased two of the same model. I had planned to run them in RAID 0. From what I've heard. Raid 0 on an SSD is pointless. Benchmarks will show huge improvement but real world wouldn't. You also lose the trim ability.

So my question is. Is it better to run SSD RAID 0 or just run them as single drives? My main use is gaming and video editing. Lots of web browsing as well.

I'd like these drives to last as long as possible. If the speed difference isn't going to be noticeable. I'd go to using just 1 drive. Would save me a little bit on boot time since it wouldn't have to go into the RAID menu every boot.

Drives I'm using are a pair of OCZ Vertex3 drives. They are on the latest firmware. Any input would be great.

Thanks!


PS- Single or Raid 0. I still planned on butting the OS and games on a drive.

More about : ssd ssd raid

July 3, 2012 4:41:36 PM

why bother with RAID anything when one SSD drive is fast enough
m
0
l
a c 261 G Storage
July 3, 2012 4:42:08 PM

I would go single since trim is not yet supported in raid and probability of DATA loss because of single drive failure is doubled with two drives.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b G Storage
July 3, 2012 4:46:51 PM

It's your preference really. I run RAID-0 Corsairs and they're fantastic. However, a single high-speed 500MB/s SSD will be more than enough for gaming and most computer tasks.

Being a computer enthusiast, I actually experimented with a large eight SSD RAID-0 using an x16 PCI-e controller and it was pretty fun. 2GB/s transfer speeds are nuts.

But in the real world, you're not really buying anything than the enjoyment of running a benchmark for the first time and looking at the numbers. You could play around and copy files from one place to another just to watch the extreme speed, but ultimately, there's no practical point in 2 drives.

The best value is one fast 500MB/s SSD and a large backup USB 3.0 hard drive (or internal, your choice).

There's a lot of criticism regarding SSD's in RAID-0 but most of it comes from people who are either jealous or stupid. SSD's scale extremely well in RAID and after 3 years of running eight of them in a RAID-0, i saw no noticeable change in performance.

Point:

Choose RAID-0 for your SSD's if you want to take a screen shot of the benchmarks and feel good about having super fast transfer speeds. Understand that your games and other applications won't see any benefit due to other bottlenecks.

Choose a single FAST (500MB/s) SSD and a large platter drive for your storage if you don't care about benchmarks and only care about the performance of your games and applications. You'll get the same performance from them and save money.
Share
July 3, 2012 4:56:19 PM

captaincharisma said:
why bother with RAID anything when one SSD drive is fast enough


Want whatever works best. What will give me the best noticeable speeds.

cirdecus said:
It's your preference really. I run RAID-0 Corsairs and they're fantastic. However, a single high-speed 500MB/s SSD will be more than enough for gaming and most computer tasks.

Being a computer enthusiast, I actually experimented with a large eight SSD RAID-0 using an x16 PCI-e controller and it was pretty fun. 2GB/s transfer speeds are nuts.

But in the real world, you're not really buying anything than the enjoyment of running a benchmark for the first time and looking at the numbers. You could play around and copy files from one place to another just to watch the extreme speed, but ultimately, there's no practical point in 2 drives.

The best value is one fast 500MB/s SSD and a large backup USB 3.0 hard drive (or internal, your choice).

There's a lot of criticism regarding SSD's in RAID-0 but most of it comes from people who are either jealous or stupid. SSD's scale extremely well in RAID and after 3 years of running eight of them in a RAID-0, i saw no noticeable change in performance.

Point:

Choose RAID-0 for your SSD's if you want to take a screen shot of the benchmarks and feel good about having super fast transfer speeds. Understand that your games and other applications won't see any benefit due to other bottlenecks.

Choose a single FAST (500MB/s) SSD and a large platter drive for your storage if you don't care about benchmarks and only care about the performance of your games and applications. You'll get the same performance from them and save money.


Hmm. So in real world applications I won't see a difference. Just in benchmarks. Well, I don't do any kind of bench marking. You'd think raid0 would last longer due to less righting on a single drive. Evens out the read and writes to two?
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 5:30:56 PM

RAID 0 SSD pretty much only useful if you buy 2 cheap slow SSD for system drive like Intel X25-V or Kingston SSD Now V series 2 years ago.

But like everyone pointed out, current generation SSD has more than enough speed for everyday usage, you won't notice differences in real world performance.
Especially when TRIM not working on RAID atm, it will make the drive performance degrade faster.

As for drive lifetime, don't worry about it, either the drive is defective or you will replace it because there is better drive by then.
Best bet when you use SSD as system drive, turn off pagefile and have more RAM.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 5:41:41 PM

duhduh_13 said:
RAID 0 SSD pretty much only useful if you buy 2 cheap slow SSD for system drive like Intel X25-V or Kingston SSD Now V series 2 years ago.

But like everyone pointed out, current generation SSD has more than enough speed for everyday usage, you won't notice differences in real world performance.
Especially when TRIM not working on RAID atm, it will make the drive performance degrade faster.

As for drive lifetime, don't worry about it, either the drive is defective or you will replace it because there is better drive by then.
Best bet when you use SSD as system drive, turn off pagefile and have more RAM.


So in terms of drives lasting. RAID 0 won't make it last any longer/less?
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 5:57:09 PM

Without TRIM, the drives will do more write cycles to compensate.
So they will last less than single drive with TRIM, but before you see this happening, you probably already buy a new drive.
SSD is new technology compared to mechanical drive, I don't think anyone actually exhaust the write cycles on the drive they bought 3 years ago for normal everyday use, unless it's defective.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 6:12:46 PM

I see. Well I like to stick to whatever I buy for years. I'm not one to upgrade every year so I'd like them to last me 3 years.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 6:16:58 PM

JukeBox360 said:
I see. Well I like to stick to whatever I buy for years. I'm not one to upgrade every year so I'd like them to last me 3 years.


My 2xIntel X25-V RAID-0 I bought 2 years go still reporting 100% lifetime using Intel SSD Toolbox, 2.4TB data has been written to each of the drive.
I was using it as system drive for 2 years, but I'm using it as cache and temp drive now.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 6:27:30 PM

JukeBox360 said:
Want whatever works best. What will give me the best noticeable speeds.



Hmm. So in real world applications I won't see a difference. Just in benchmarks. Well, I don't do any kind of bench marking. You'd think raid0 would last longer due to less righting on a single drive. Evens out the read and writes to two?


RAID 0 uses 2 drives so when it comes to data the fail rate would be greater because all you need is one drive out of the 2 to fail to lose all your data. RAID 0 will only have a very small increase in speed which is something you most likely not notice.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 6:30:50 PM

duhduh_13 said:
My 2xIntel X25-V RAID-0 I bought 2 years go still reporting 100% lifetime using Intel SSD Toolbox, 2.4TB data has been written to each of the drive.
I was using it as system drive for 2 years, but I'm using it as cache and temp drive now.


I see. I guess I'll just leave it in RAID 0. Doesn't seem as if it's worth a reformat.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 7:38:08 PM

JukeBox360 said:
I see. I guess I'll just leave it in RAID 0. Doesn't seem as if it's worth a reformat.



Yea I know what you mean. I have two 120 GB SSD's in RAID 0 and have thought about splitting them up to take advantage of TRIM. But honestly I like how it performs already and I don't feel like re-installing Windows and all my programs. Also, I like having it appear as one 240 GB drive and not having to worry about one of them filling up and getting close to 100% capacity.

True, if one of them fails I will lose all of the data on both, but I keep all my important documents and movies/photos etc on an HDD.
m
0
l
July 3, 2012 8:15:19 PM

mmaatt747 said:
Yea I know what you mean. I have two 120 GB SSD's in RAID 0 and have thought about splitting them up to take advantage of TRIM. But honestly I like how it performs already and I don't feel like re-installing Windows and all my programs.
Quote:
Also, I like having it appear as one 240 GB drive and not having to worry about one of them filling up and getting close to 100% capacity.


True, if one of them fails I will lose all of the data on both, but I keep all my important documents and movies/photos etc on an HDD.


Same here. Just seems easier and less maintenance.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
July 3, 2012 8:49:38 PM

JukeBox360 said:
Want whatever works best. What will give me the best noticeable speeds.



Hmm. So in real world applications I won't see a difference. Just in benchmarks. Well, I don't do any kind of bench marking. You'd think raid0 would last longer due to less righting on a single drive. Evens out the read and writes to two?



Right, the key here is real world stuff like gaming and other tasks. Unless you plan on running a huge intensive SQL database or something, you won't notice a difference.

I don't think the differences between RAID-0 and a single drive in terms of longevity is significant. You did bring up a good point about disk space, obviously you'll get a full 240GB single drive using RAID which would be more convenient than splitting them up, that's up to you. Also, of course, since you have the second drive already, you could put them in a RAID 1 and get some redundancy if you're not concerned about disk space.

But in the end, there really aren't negatives either way you choose, so you don't have to worry about that. But as far as performance, 500MB/s is really the sweet spot to catapult you over any bottlenecks disk speed would present in 99% of applications.

You would only go beyond 500MB/s for fun in my opinion. If you could ebay the drive and deal with 120GB of space, then maybe you could afford some more RAM or something :) 
m
0
l
July 5, 2012 12:15:56 AM

cirdecus said:
Right, the key here is real world stuff like gaming and other tasks. Unless you plan on running a huge intensive SQL database or something, you won't notice a difference.

I don't think the differences between RAID-0 and a single drive in terms of longevity is significant. You did bring up a good point about disk space, obviously you'll get a full 240GB single drive using RAID which would be more convenient than splitting them up, that's up to you. Also, of course, since you have the second drive already, you could put them in a RAID 1 and get some redundancy if you're not concerned about disk space.

But in the end, there really aren't negatives either way you choose, so you don't have to worry about that. But as far as performance, 500MB/s is really the sweet spot to catapult you over any bottlenecks disk speed would present in 99% of applications.

You would only go beyond 500MB/s for fun in my opinion. If you could ebay the drive and deal with 120GB of space, then maybe you could afford some more RAM or something :) 



SSD was the last this missing from my rig. Otherwise It's pretty much done. Can't upgrade it any higher then what it is. More then enough RAM. ( 16 GB ) Don't see why anyone would need anymore then that. I've never used over 7GB
m
0
l
July 12, 2012 12:11:18 AM

Best answer selected by JukeBox360.
m
0
l
November 18, 2012 9:00:33 PM

rolli59 said:
I would go single since trim is not yet supported in raid and probability of DATA loss because of single drive failure is doubled with two drives.


i dont know the date of when you posted this but trim has been supported for raid 0 since intel RST driver 11.0 which came out 2-10-2012
m
0
l
November 18, 2012 9:36:08 PM

hey guys its been a year or two since the last time i posted on this site, i bought 2 samsung 830's 128g in raid 0, i mostly did this to have 1 larger ssd seeing that i did not have the money at the time for just 1 large ssd.. i have been happy with it with no hitches, runs flawlessly, here is my only complaint.

my 830's came with samsung magic magician software that has some cool tools like, OS optimization that will turn off things like , super fetch, defrag, indexing service and temporary file cleanup on the fly, but while in raid 0 the software does not recognize my drives, acording to google search its a common error that i guess samsung isnt going to fix...so here is my question, should i just put them back in AHCI mode as separate drives? 1 for OS and apps and the other for my games? ps this software tool also lets me do FW updates even though they come with latest firmware in the future this could be useful

even before i put them in raid 0 they were blazing fast..let me know your thoughts

W8
Asrock z77 extreme3
i5 3570k
Crucial ballistix tracer 1600mhz 16g
Asus DCll GTX 670
Samsung 830 128g x2 in raid 0
m
0
l
May 28, 2013 8:13:58 AM

Isaac81 said:
hey guys its been a year or two since the last time i posted on this site, i bought 2 samsung 830's 128g in raid 0, i mostly did this to have 1 larger ssd seeing that i did not have the money at the time for just 1 large ssd.. i have been happy with it with no hitches, runs flawlessly,

Hi. I know this thread is a little old, but I've been wondering if two smaller 120's Raided together over two SATA-III ports would be faster than a single 240 connected to just one SATA-III.

I know "execution" times of programs aren't affected that much, but I'm more focused on "load times" (especially 'Boot' times). What has your experience been? Thx.
m
0
l
May 31, 2013 9:59:48 AM

Mugsy said:
Isaac81 said:
hey guys its been a year or two since the last time i posted on this site, i bought 2 samsung 830's 128g in raid 0, i mostly did this to have 1 larger ssd seeing that i did not have the money at the time for just 1 large ssd.. i have been happy with it with no hitches, runs flawlessly,

Hi. I know this thread is a little old, but I've been wondering if two smaller 120's Raided together over two SATA-III ports would be faster than a single 240 connected to just one SATA-III.

I know "execution" times of programs aren't affected that much, but I'm more focused on "load times" (especially 'Boot' times). What has your experience been? Thx.


Sorry, meant to respond with my link above directly to your post.

m
0
l
May 31, 2013 10:54:16 AM

mmaatt747 said:
Sorry, meant to respond with my link above directly to your post.

Thanks. Just the information I was looking for.
m
0
l
!