Setup RAID 0 w/ 2 SSD's of different brands/ different controllers, but same size...?

[SnickerSnack]

My backup 500gb Barracuda is on the fritz, and I have the choice of buying another internal HDD (I'd get another 1TB most likely)

- OR -

Purchasing another 128gb SSD and running it and my existing one in a RAID 0 config, while partitioning the 1TB Barracuda as a partial backup/ data overflow drive. (I don't have all that much data, so storage capacity isn't a huge deal).

I currently own a Crucial M4 128gb SSD, which I believe uses a Sandforce controller, and the drive I'm looking at is:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8209152&Sku=O261-5318
(OCZ Vertex 450 128gb - if you don't want to click the link). It uses the Indilinx controller.

Does anyone have experience with this controller, and would it be possible to marry the two SSD's in a RAID 0 configuration?

Any advice on my possible options? Thanks!

 

[nukemaster]

RAID0 will work, it will not be "optimal", but users have mix and matched hard drives for year.

You do not stand to gain much with ssd's in raid as most of the "slowness" that a hard drive has comes from slow random read/write operations. SSDs alone do not have this issue and RAID0 does not help access times.

Your sequential read/writes should be improved.

BTW the M4 does NOT use sandforce(it uses a Marvel one iirc). that is part of the reason it was popular.

As far as OCZ goes, they own Indilinx and use that controller over a range of SSDs so the firmware should be pretty good now.

On a side note, under half full the OCZ drive performs MUCH better because it uses the drive as SLC and not MLC. This may have other effects on a raid volume as well.

I would recommend(not saying you HAVE to) using the new drive for Windows/programs and the older one for some games just to avoid issues coming from such different drives.

 

[SnickerSnack]

RAID0 will work, it will not be "optimal", but users have mix and matched hard drives for year.

You do not stand to gain much with ssd's in raid as most of the "slowness" that a hard drive has comes from slow random read/write operations. SSDs alone do not have this issue and RAID0 does not help access times.

Your sequential read/writes should be improved.

BTW the M4 does NOT use sandforce(it uses a Marvel one iirc). that is part of the reason it was popular.

As far as OCZ goes, they own Indilinx and use that controller over a range of SSDs so the firmware should be pretty good now.

On a side note, under half full the OCZ drive performs MUCH better because it uses the drive as SLC and not MLC. This may have other effects on a raid volume as well.

I would recommend(not saying you HAVE to) using the new drive for Windows/programs and the older one for some games just to avoid issues coming from such different drives.

Okay. Thanks very much for the input! You're right - It's been awhile since I bought the M4, I forgot what controller it had.

Sounds like what you suggested would be the best option. I had considered doing just that, now I think I will.

 

[nukemaster]

I know that having hard drives back in the day one with AAM on and the other with it off(WDC messed up) caused random performance since both drives have to wait on the one that took longer to get to the next point on the drive(AAM made the drive quiet but kills access times).

This actually hurt performance and since both of these SSDs have different performance. The OCZ drives performance changes in the 50-60% full range while the M4 does not. I am a bit worried about your performance in the end.

If you see the review on the Vector 150, you see how your new drive will act.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vector-150-ssd-review,3664.html

The decrease in performance at about 50% i was talking about(its more of a increase in performance before 50% to be honest.).

 

[SnickerSnack]

I know that having hard drives back in the day one with AAM on and the other with it off(WDC messed up) caused random performance since both drives have to wait on the one that took longer to get to the next point on the drive(AAM made the drive quiet but kills access times).

This actually hurt performance and since both of these SSDs have different performance. The OCZ drives performance changes in the 50-60% full range while the M4 does not. I am a bit worried about your performance in the end.

If you see the review on the Vector 150, you see how your new drive will act.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vector-150-ssd-review,3664.html

The decrease in performance at about 50% i was talking about(its more of a increase in performance before 50% to be honest.).

Thanks for the additional input. In the meantime, I changed my purchase decision from the OCZ 150 to the
Seagate 600 240gb. The Seagate was being offered for $140, as opposed to $90 for the 128gb OCZ. The price per gb on the Seagate was too good to resist. It's unfortunate, as I have lost lots of money on OCZ stock, but price discrepancies like that are ultimately going to bankrupt them.

Since I'm not doing RAID, this seemed like a great purchase deal.

 

[nukemaster]

240 is a better amount of space for many users as well. While 128 works fine for some(the 120gigabyte in my media center is not an issue because it has hard drives for actual storage). others want more space for sure(games/programs).