RAID0 F3 1TB or SSD Need advice

Status
Not open for further replies.

kureme

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
282
0
18,810
21
Built a PC a few months back with a single F3 1TB drive. I was waiting for a good deal on SSDs but didn't find any good ones this past holiday season. I am considering getting a second F3 for a RAID0 set up which will be around $60 or a 100GB+ SSD which will be $170+. Perhaps I should just keep waiting? I was thinking just go with the raid0 set up as main drive now and later when a good SSD deal comes around change it to a raid1/no raid storage/backup drive.

Money is not really an issue but bang for the buck is. I don't want to buy something today only to have it drop value a week later. All the parts I have now still have the same value or are actually higher than when I got them 4 months ago.

The 60GB GSkill for $60 deal a while back that I missed kinda ruined it for me. Any deal not $1 per GB is not good enough. http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/41095

So yeah.. I need advice.
 


Typical user activity is 90% short reads and writes, a task that any ssd does very well, and about 10x faster than the raided 1tb drives. It also does sequential reads comparable or faster. A no brainer if you value performance. Your selection of size is probably the most difficult choice.
Larger ssd's are usually faster, but not enough so to warrant getting a larger one than you need. The OS will take about 13gb. Look for Intel, or a sandforce based SSD for best performance.

 
Raid-0 will give you no perceptible performance benefit for the OS and apps.

Any SSD with trim(and windows-7) will make you happy.

The better SSD's will have sandforce controllers today.
Intel is also good, but a bit dated. They should launch gen3 ssd's this quarter. I expect the price/gb to come down a bit then.
If you wait for the next best thing, you will wait forever.


But, since you already have a 1tb drive, I suggest a 128gb SSD for the OS and apps. Would 64gb do? Put storage and backups on the 1tb drive.
 

kureme

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
282
0
18,810
21
I was considering the RAID0 set up because I've read that two F3s can achieve average reads of over 200 mb/s. Even faster if they're short stroked which I may do since I don't really need all 2TB just yet.

I'm not waiting for the next best thing. I pretty much know what I want to get and now just waiting for the right price. Like I said before, that $1/gb sandforce SSD deal I missed makes all deals above that price ratio a rip off to me.

With that in mind, the next best thing to me is raiding two F3s until a good SSD deal comes along. Now my question is is that a smart thing to do as a temporary solution? Or should I just not waste the $60 and put that towards a "ripoff" SSD?
 


Typical user activity is 90% short reads and writes, a task that any ssd does very well, and about 10x faster than the raided 1tb drives. It also does sequential reads comparable or faster. A no brainer if you value performance. Your selection of size is probably the most difficult choice.
Larger ssd's are usually faster, but not enough so to warrant getting a larger one than you need. The OS will take about 13gb. Look for Intel, or a sandforce based SSD for best performance.

 

kureme

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
282
0
18,810
21
Well I'm eventually getting a SSD but just waiting for the right price or something decent thats close to $1/gb. Hopefully the 3rd gen SSDs will push older SSDs down closer to that ratio.

I'll take it you're opposed to the raid0 idea but I can always change it to a raid1 or a no raid set up for double storage when the SSD deal comes along. Maybe I should just tough it out and wait a few more seconds loading time until then.
 


Yup; no raid for me.

I tried raid-0 several years ago with two raptors; It made no apparent diference, but the benches looked good. Raid-0 can help with large sequential file processing, but not much else.

raid-1 protects you from hard drive failure, but not from other more common file destruction such as viruses, or operator error. You will do better using external drives for backup.
 

mavroxur

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2009
1,490
0
19,460
58



Do you even know how a RAID 0 operates? It would give a considerable performance increase over a single drive.


 


Absolutely, do you? If you are asking for an explanation:

Alternating stripes( of a user selected size, 32k, 256k, whatever) are written to each member drive of the raid-0 array.

When a read needs to be done, the first stripe is read to satisfy the request.
In the event that more than one stripe is needed, a second read is initiated to access a stripe on the second drive concurrently. That concurrency is where the benefit comes, the concurrent read.

In a hard drive, you need positioning time( seek, search, rotational delay) in addition to the transfer time .
A SSD fares better in raid-0 because of the minimal positioning time. For what it is worth, I also tried two Intel X25-M 80gb drives in raid-0. My objective was a larger system image, not performance. They felt no faster than the single X25-M 160gb drive which replaced them.

Remember, benchmarks, particularly synthetic ones bear little resemblance to what YOUR usage pattern is.
For the typical user, the OS does 90% small(4-8k) reads and writes. That is why there are very few concurrent read opportunities.
Better than nothing though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY