Internal SATA2 SSD vs Internal HDD vs External USB 3.1 SSD for OS/Apps (Windows 10)

[taott]

Hey guys, so I've (pretty much) completed my first build and have found a ton of helpful information throughout this site; however, I am not sure if my current set-up is as optimal as it could be given the hardware I already own.

My specs are:
Windows 10, version 1803
MOBO: GA-78LMT-USB3 R2
CPU: AMD FX8350 w/ Wraith cooler (OC'd to 4.2ghz base, turbo core and APM disabled)
GPU: AMD Radeon RX460 2gb
RAM: PNY XLR8 Anarchy 2x8gb dual channel @ 1600mhz (16gb)
Drives: PNY CS900 240gb internal SSD, WD 1tb internal HDD, Lexar SL100 512gb external USB3.1 SSD
500 watt PSU
4 intake fans (two Thermaltake Riings on top, one Riing and one Corsair ML120 on front) and one ML20 exhaust on rear


This is not a gaming computer. I work full-time from home trading securities and had been using my newer HP Spectre x360 (i7 8550u, 16gb RAM, 360gb SSD) and a Targus dual 4k dock to basically turn it into a desktop tower and project to dual 34" monitors, use a corsair keyboard + mouse, etc. This setup was very laggy and finnicky, and the laptop would get too hot to touch within 10 minutes of running all of my work software.

So I decided to build my own desktop. Initially, I built it with only the 1tb WD HDD. Performance was OK, but I did not like the time it took to boot and open apps. So this weekend I purchased a PNY CS900 internal SSD. I knew my MOBO only had SATA 2 ports, but I thought SATA2 was limited to 3gb/s, and since my new SSD is rated around 500mb/s--well below the 3gb/s limitation-- I did not think it would affect my read/write speeds. I must've been wrong.

First, I cloned my HDD to my SSD.
Then i converted it from MBR to GPT using mbr2gpt in Windows Command.
Then I did a clean install of Windows onto the SSD and changed all SATA ports to AHCI in BIOS.
Then after a couple of succesful boots from the SSD with the HDD disconnected, I wiped the HDD and converted it from MBR to GPT. I plan to use the HDD to store files, docs, pics, etc, and keep the OS and all my apps/software on the SSD.

Everything seems to be functioning properly now, but my read/write speeds for my internal SSD are still sub-par. I also have a Lexar SL100 USB3.1 512gb external SSD that I tested as well. I've read mixed opinions on using a USB SSD for your OS/apps, but I wanted to test the speeds anyways.

My speeds are below:
PNY cs900 240gb internal SSD (specs state ~500mb/s)

WD 1tb HDD (i had to uncheck all boxes except for read/write because it was taking FOREVER)

Lexar SL100 512gb external USB SSD (specs state 550mb/s read, 400mb/s write)

So what do the experts suggest? Is this to be expected? Is there any way to speed up my internal SSD apart from upgrading my MOBO to one with SATA3 ports? Should I use my external SSD for OS/apps?

Also: My HDD and internal SSD are both being powered by the same molex cable. The SSD is plugged into SATA port 0 and the HDD is in SATA port 5. This is my mobo: https://static.gigabyte.com/Product/2/6475/2017112414081291_src.png

 

[USAFRet]

For an SSD in a SATA II port, those numbers are right on track.

And don't try to install the OS on the external drive. Windows does NOT like doing that.
That pathway leads to tears.

 

[taott]

For an SSD in a SATA II port, those numbers are right on track.

And don't try to install the OS on the external drive. Windows does NOT like doing that.
That pathway leads to tears.

Thanks for the confirmation. I ended up doing a few more upgrades to get my system to where I need it to be, and now my speeds are much faster.

I put the ol' GA-78LMT-usb3 R2 in the closet and installed an MSI 970 Gaming mobo that I found locally for a good price (so now I have SATA III/6gb/s ports) and added another SSD I found locally as well (WD Blue 500gb SATA PC SSD). Also upgraded to a CX650M PSU.
So I cloned the PNY 240gb SSD that I had everything installed on to the WD Blue SSD and am booting fine from that and getting great speeds from everything... over 500mb/s read/write on both the PNY and the WD.

So now I plan on using the WD and the PNY for my main drives/storage (combined 700+gb of solid state memory), and then using my WD 1tb HDD for full backups. So basically, I want to combine my two SSD's into one big SSD.

To go about this, should I configure a RAID array to make combine my PNY and WD SSD's into one bigger SSD/one volume? Is this the right way to do this? Will this decrease speeds at all? Basically, I want the SSD's running together as one large SSD and then the 1tb HDD running completely separate as a hotplug drive purely to hold a full backup of my SSD's including the OS in case my SSD's fail. Is it possible/reasonable/feasible to do this? Can I do this without completely wiping and reformatting my SSD's?

If I'm understanding things right, I guess I could clone my current primary SSD to my HDD, boot from HDD, delete and format both SSD's as RAID, then reclone my HDD to the new RAID array? Or am I completely off? Any thoughts, recommendations, suggestions, etc. will be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[USAFRet]

240GB + 500GB SSD's?
RAID (of any type)?

Noooooooooo!!

A RAID 0 is what you're thinking of, but it does NOT add like that.
It would be 2x the size of the smallest. So, 240+500 = 480. 1/2 of the 500GB is unused.
Not what you're thinking of.

In addition, all the other many hazards of a RAID 0.

Just leave them as two individual drives. 2 drive letters.
We can go into details on this if you wish.

 

[taott]

240GB + 500GB SSD's?
RAID (of any type)?

Noooooooooo!!

A RAID 0 is what you're thinking of, but it does NOT add like that.
It would be 2x the size of the smallest. So, 240+500 = 480. 1/2 of the 500GB is unused.
Not what you're thinking of.

In addition, all the other many hazards of a RAID 0.

Just leave them as two individual drives. 2 drive letters.
We can go into details on this if you wish.

Thanks. After posting my previous message, it only took about a minute for me to do some "google's" and discover that I was way off and RAID 0 setups should use 2 of the exact same SSD's. I also read a lot regarding the hazards of RAID 0, but I am not too concerned... Ill keep backups of everything and make use of product warranties if a drive fails. I understand there is an increased risk of drive failure, and I know that when one drive in RAID 0 fails, the other one does too; however, it seems like a very small risk. If SSD's have a failure rate of, say, 1% w/in the first year, and RAID 0 doubles or even triples the chance of failure, then a 2-3% chance of failure doesn't scare me any more than a 1% chance of failure does.

My main goal is to have ONE single, large, primary drive for everything at the highest speeds possible (surprising, right?) and I do not want to have to decide which drive to save everything to every time I download or save anything.

So now my options seem either to be:

A: Buy another PNY 240gb SSD to pair with my existing PNY 240gb SSD and set them up as a RAID 0 to use as primary drive for everything, use the WD 500gb SSD as an additional storage drive, and use the WD 1tb HDD for a full backup of everything.

B: Exchange my PNY 240gb SSD for store credit towards another WD 500gb SSD to pair with my existing WD 500gb SSD, configure them together as RAID 0, and then use the 1tb HDD for full backups.

Both options will yield cost about the same-- BBY has the WD Blue SSD's like mine on sale for $90 and I paid a little under $50 for the PNY. So I could buy another identical PNY for $50ish or return my existing one and then pay the difference on another WD Blue, which is about the same cost in the end.

Thoughts?

 

[USAFRet]

Whether the 2 drives you have now, or 2 identical drives...RAID 0 is not a good solution.

Yes, it gives you a single drive letter for the two drives.
It also increases the complexity and fail potential.

Windows and other software has gotten really good over the last few years about using secondary drives (and its drive letter) almost seamlessly. No RAID needed.

Doc/Music/Video libraries. Easily relocated. You, the user, won't even notice.
Win 7 & 8: http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-1834397/ssd-redirecting-static-files.html
Win 8.1 & 10: http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-2024314/windows-redirecting-folders-drives.html
------------------------------
Steam games:
Steam games location
In the steam client:
Steam
Settings
Downloads
Steam Library Folders
Add library folder

To move an already installed game
Games library
Right click the game
Properties
Local Files
Move Install Folder
-----------------------


My system has 6 drives. All SATA III SSD. Each with their own purpose. No RAID in sight.
1 physical drive for the OS and applications. Other drives for other things.

 

[taott]

Whether the 2 drives you have now, or 2 identical drives...RAID 0 is not a good solution.

Yes, it gives you a single drive letter for the two drives.
It also increases the complexity and fail potential.

Windows and other software has gotten really good over the last few years about using secondary drives (and its drive letter) almost seamlessly. No RAID needed.

Doc/Music/Video libraries. Easily relocated. You, the user, won't even notice.
Win 7 & 8: http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-1834397/ssd-redirecting-static-files.html
Win 8.1 & 10: http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-2024314/windows-redirecting-folders-drives.html
------------------------------
Steam games:
Steam games location
In the steam client:
Steam
Settings
Downloads
Steam Library Folders
Add library folder

To move an already installed game
Games library
Right click the game
Properties
Local Files
Move Install Folder
-----------------------


My system has 6 drives. All SATA III SSD. Each with their own purpose. No RAID in sight.
1 physical drive for the OS and applications. Other drives for other things.

So would the increase read/write speeds with RAID 0 simply not be worth it? I guess im failing to understand why RAID 0 would not be a good solution (apart from the increased fail potential)…. Faster speeds, one single "This PC" drive for everything, and still only a small albeit increased chance of failure (~3% RAID 0 vs ~1% non-RAID).

 

[USAFRet]

So would the increase read/write speeds with RAID 0 simply not be worth it? I guess im failing to understand why RAID 0 would not be a good solution (apart from the increased fail potential)…. Faster speeds, one single "This PC" drive for everything, and still only a small albeit increased chance of failure (~3% RAID 0 vs ~1% non-RAID).

With SSD's in normal use (you and I), there is no speed benefit.
Read here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

If you were building a movie production system, then yes, maybe. Only for transient data, moving between two RAID 0 arrays. But if you were doing that, I'd suggest an NVMe drive which is faster still.