![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
1 Intel X25-M 80GB SSD or 2 x Intel X25-V 40GB SSD in raid?
- Thread starter Brutus75
- Start date
InvisiBill
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,608
Unless you can get a good deal on the X25-V's, the X25-M will be a much simpler solution. The M will give you the same amount of space, with TRIM, without the hassles of dealing with RAID. It might be a little slower in sequential transfers, but that probably won't have much effect in real-world usage of an OS drive.
Anand seems to like the raid option better:
http://anandtech.com/show/3618/intel-x25v-in-raid0-faster-than-x25m-g2-for-250
http://anandtech.com/show/3618/intel-x25v-in-raid0-faster-than-x25m-g2-for-250
InvisiBill
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,608
The PCMark Vantage HDD test was approximately 12% faster on the X25-V array than on the single X25-M. The overall test was approximately 2.5% faster.
Anand said:
Anand recommends leaving 10-20% for spare area to offset the loss of TRIM, so you'd probably end up with 64-72GB (59.6-67.1GiB) of usable space vs. the full 80GB (74.5GiB) on the M.
Yes, the RAID0 would be faster in a number of things. However, you then have to deal with the complexities of a RAID array - possible extra work during setup, more likely to lose data, some disk utilities won't see it properly, etc. With the loss of TRIM, you'll lose some space and/or have to deal with performance degradation eventually. With the single X25-M, you simply plug it in and go. Compared to a standard HDD, it'll still be way faster for regular OS operations.
Only things faster are SandForce and Micron-based controllers. But the Intel still manages to stay in top in some workloads. Intel SSDs don't have any particular weakness; while the other SSD controllers do.
So i would still go for an Intel drive at this moment.
As for two X25-Vs in RAID0; yes why not. I can understand many being scared about the "RAID0 is dangerous" stuff. But fact is that's what the drives use internally already; one X25-V is a 5-disk RAID0 array internal; X25-M is a 10-disk or 10-channel RAID0 or interleaving. So whether you pick one or two; you are still using interleaved access.
If SSDs fail, it won't be due to a head crash; SSDs don't fail in the way HDDs fail. That makes RAID0 even more desirable to use. As the SSD typically stores system files and not personal/irreplaceable files, it should not need any redundancy or even a backup if you separate your data from system files like is recommended.
So i would still go for an Intel drive at this moment.
As for two X25-Vs in RAID0; yes why not. I can understand many being scared about the "RAID0 is dangerous" stuff. But fact is that's what the drives use internally already; one X25-V is a 5-disk RAID0 array internal; X25-M is a 10-disk or 10-channel RAID0 or interleaving. So whether you pick one or two; you are still using interleaved access.
If SSDs fail, it won't be due to a head crash; SSDs don't fail in the way HDDs fail. That makes RAID0 even more desirable to use. As the SSD typically stores system files and not personal/irreplaceable files, it should not need any redundancy or even a backup if you separate your data from system files like is recommended.
none of my hdds have failed, 3 of them have been in a machine for 10 years now
anyway, with hdds your most common reason for failure is mechanical? i have only single platter hdds in my main rig. when ssd fails, you get no warning and no chance of recovery. ssd hasn't existed long enough for anybody to say a particular model has been running for 10 years, yet.
now, i'm not saying ssd should be able to run for 10 years 24/7, but i don't want to deal with one failing in only 0-1 year, either. this seems to be more common with a well thought out ssd buy over hdd. i admit, i am pretty rough on my computers, though. ssd still seems awfully flimsy to me is all
I'd go with a single X25-M for now, you can always add a 2nd one later to improve performance beyond that of any current SSD. If the X25-V had faster sequential write speeds I'd say two of them in RAID would be worth it over the single X25-M but ehh... Giving up TRIM to gain performance only during reads doesn't seem worth it, when the price is the same.
I was recently tempted to do just this tho, swap my X25-M to my netbook and buy a 2nd X25-V (Kingston branded, for $75) and RAID it w/my existing X25-V on the desktop... Ultimately I just decided to wait it out tho. Hopefully the price on 80GB X25-M's drops a bit by next year and it doesn't simply get phased out... The G1's dropped in price when the G2's were announced even tho they weren't getting any cheaper to make, heh.
If the X25-V had faster sequential write speeds I'd say two of them in RAID would be worth it over the single X25-M but ehh... Giving up TRIM to gain performance only during reads doesn't seem worth it, when the price is the same.I was recently tempted to do just this tho, swap my X25-M to my netbook and buy a 2nd X25-V (Kingston branded, for $75) and RAID it w/my existing X25-V on the desktop... Ultimately I just decided to wait it out tho. Hopefully the price on 80GB X25-M's drops a bit by next year and it doesn't simply get phased out... The G1's dropped in price when the G2's were announced even tho they weren't getting any cheaper to make, heh.
Makaveli@BETA
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,433
hmm what?
When an SSD drive is about to go it will turn into a read only drive not allowing anymore writing.
How is this not better than when a Hard drive fails?
He probably doesn't mean an SSD reaching the end of its lifetime because it has exceeded all write cycles; that is predictable and doesn't come with any data loss. But especially non-Intel drives may fail in different ways; firmware issues that make it become stuck in a loop and be unusable, etc.
However, when talking about a failing SSD, meaning electronic failure; that's very rare. Just as rare that your CPU suddenly stops working.
New products? Like NAND isn't used for decades; only the new controllerchips are new; and unless you went for a mediocre Indilinx/JMicron/Samsung controller, you got yourself a superior Intel/SandForce/Micron controller that works amazingly well.
The reasoning could be used to say any new product from AMD or Intel is unreliable, "because it has not been tested for more than 10 years". So you better trade in your hot system right now for an old (BUT PROVEN!) pentium 1 system. Of course, this argument doesn't hold and is based on FUD.
However, when talking about a failing SSD, meaning electronic failure; that's very rare. Just as rare that your CPU suddenly stops working.
Conclusion: HDDs are safe?
You're not saying SSDs should be able to reach 10 years. So what *are* you saying? That SSDs fail more often than HDDs? Maybe that is true for your specific case; with only a few HDDs. But you seem to marginalize the superior reliability of Solid State Drives.
New products? Like NAND isn't used for decades; only the new controllerchips are new; and unless you went for a mediocre Indilinx/JMicron/Samsung controller, you got yourself a superior Intel/SandForce/Micron controller that works amazingly well.
The reasoning could be used to say any new product from AMD or Intel is unreliable, "because it has not been tested for more than 10 years". So you better trade in your hot system right now for an old (BUT PROVEN!) pentium 1 system. Of course, this argument doesn't hold and is based on FUD.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,964
So I have a question that I haven't heard conclusively answered on here: If you have a drive like the X25-M 80 GB with TRIM, do you need to leave 10-20% free space or no?
Is the OCZ Vertex 120 SSD a better choice than Intel X25-M 80GB. Just got a deal on one and don't know what to do.
It's only a better choice if you need the extra space or for some reason need better sequential writes... For OS use and most other purposes the X25-M is a better drive, they cost about the same per GB too depending on rebates and where you buy 'em.
No, w/TRIM enabled it's not really necessary to partition a single drive to less than it's total capacity, any space that is cleared thru TRIM will be usable to the drive's controller just as clean unallocated space outside of your partition would be (in RAID, w/o TRIM). You should still not fill up the drive to capacity tho, because if there is no free space then the controller's got nothing to work with one way or the other.
Always leave some empty space in the drive, if you're at 74GB out 74GB you're depending solely on the 7% reserved space that Intel allocates for scratch space and performance will suffer (TRIM itself will probably be executed slower).
I happen to own the Intel SSD X25-M G2.
It's Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF) is somewhere around the neighborhood of...hmm...lets see here...1.2 million hours, aka 136.98630137 years!
Also, I have had several mechanical Hard Disk failures, and when they fail, I mean really FAIL, there isn't much that can be done to retrieve the data without spending some serious clams to get it done. So I have a feeling the neighborhood is going to be about the same in that respect. Besides, I don't ever buy a Hard Drive based on when I hope that it does or doesn't fail! Well, maybe those old Death...er, DESKStar, that's it
It's Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF) is somewhere around the neighborhood of...hmm...lets see here...1.2 million hours, aka 136.98630137 years!
Also, I have had several mechanical Hard Disk failures, and when they fail, I mean really FAIL, there isn't much that can be done to retrieve the data without spending some serious clams to get it done. So I have a feeling the neighborhood is going to be about the same in that respect. Besides, I don't ever buy a Hard Drive based on when I hope that it does or doesn't fail! Well, maybe those old Death...er, DESKStar, that's it
Backups are your friend, end of story... 'Specially for what's essentially gonna be an OS drive. Unless there's a proven reliability problem, it really shouldn't be a big issue.
Just set your rig up to make a weekly or monthly image backup of your OS drive and you'll always have the peace of mind that if it dies all of a sudden, you can just get a new one, re-image it, and get back to work with your exact config within moments. It's only slightly more cumbersome with a laptop because you can't fully automate it (unless your laptop has dual HDD bays), gotta set yourself a reminder to hook up that external HDD and back up.
Just set your rig up to make a weekly or monthly image backup of your OS drive and you'll always have the peace of mind that if it dies all of a sudden, you can just get a new one, re-image it, and get back to work with your exact config within moments. It's only slightly more cumbersome with a laptop because you can't fully automate it (unless your laptop has dual HDD bays), gotta set yourself a reminder to hook up that external HDD and back up.
m3ta1head
777
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 6,365
Backups are your friend, end of story... 'Specially for what's essentially gonna be an OS drive. Unless there's a proven reliability problem, it really shouldn't be a big issue.
Just set your rig up to make a weekly or monthly image backup of your OS drive and you'll always have the peace of mind that if it dies all of a sudden, you can just get a new one, re-image it, and get back to work with your exact config within moments. It's only slightly more cumbersome with a laptop because you can't fully automate it (unless your laptop has dual HDD bays), gotta set yourself a reminder to hook up that external HDD and back up.
What program do you recommend to schedule automated backups/OS drive images?
I use Norton Ghost (v14.0 IIRC) because it's always worked flawlessly for me and I've had it for a while... The newest version (15.0) can even backup the SRP (that 100MB partition) altho it's not a big deal either way. The SRP is more of a nuisance than anything, you can always eliminate it or even restore C:/ w/o touching the SRP. Personally I installed Win7 w/o it, serves no real purpose unless you use BitLocker. One nice thing about Ghost is that it can re-size partitions if necessary and it maintains alignments at both ends of the partition, which is important w/SSD, so you can even use it to safely migrate partitions from a HDD (so long as it was originally created/aligned by Win7/Vista, XP partitions would be a messy affair).
I've also used Windows 7's own image backup tool when doing system repair jobs and it works fine... DriveImage XML is another good free alternative, I used it a lot before Win7's built-in tool was improved.
For straight up file backups I just use MS SyncToy or Brightsparks SyncBack, but since I keep all my docs on a HDD I guess that doesn't have much to do w/the topic... Ghost's file backup tool is rubbish tho, it doesn't do straight 1:1 file syncs which I prefer (to compressed backups w/everything jammed into a single file), works great for image backups tho, it's never let me down. With the latest version you can even create backups w/o installing it (by running off the CD) as you could w/earlier versions (9.0 and before).
I've also used Windows 7's own image backup tool when doing system repair jobs and it works fine... DriveImage XML is another good free alternative, I used it a lot before Win7's built-in tool was improved.
For straight up file backups I just use MS SyncToy or Brightsparks SyncBack, but since I keep all my docs on a HDD I guess that doesn't have much to do w/the topic... Ghost's file backup tool is rubbish tho, it doesn't do straight 1:1 file syncs which I prefer (to compressed backups w/everything jammed into a single file), works great for image backups tho, it's never let me down. With the latest version you can even create backups w/o installing it (by running off the CD) as you could w/earlier versions (9.0 and before).