2 X RAID 0 SSD or 1 X SSD

P

Pythagorus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
73
Hey guys,

So I realized probably like some of you guys, that 1 SSD of 120gb for an OS drive is too small...
Now I want to double that.

I'm considering going 2 X 120gb SSD RAID 0.

Is this too dangerous or should I just buy 1 X 240gb SSD drive?
 
I wouldn't bother with the grief of a RAID0 unless you have a very good reason to, you won't gain any real world performance to speak of.
 
Yeah, get the 240/256gb SSD. I've got Windows 7, ~10 steam games, misc items, and still have 110gb out of 238gb available.
 
I'm confused on all those 240gb SSD drives right now.

Why are some 260ish while others are 350-380?

I have an OCZ VERTEX 2 120gb right now.

I was thinking of going VERTEX 3, but i heard people were not AS pleased with it than with past products.

What is you guys view on this?
 
Where are you seeing 240-256GB sata III ssds for $260? Most of the cheaper sandforce ssds use asynchronous nand. I'd go with the cheapest between Crucial m4, Plextor m3, Samsung 830, and Corsair Performance Pro.
 
I have 2x SSDs in RAID0 and have had no trouble from them. I was very wary at first from all the naysayers on the internet, but everything went better than expected.
 
I set up a system with raid 0 ssd's. I didn't notice any real world difference compared to my other systems with single ssd's.
Were I to do it again, it'd be a single.
 
somehipster said:
I have 2x SSDs in RAID0 and have had no trouble from them. I was very wary at first from all the naysayers on the internet, but everything went better than expected.
Click to expand...

But does it perform any better? Just because it hasn't failed yet doesn't make it worthwhile.
 
Holy thread fail. Many ways to see the benefits of RAID0, many ways NOT to.

DEPENDS ON USAGE. Of course there are benefits to RAID0 arrays. Why do you think that RAID type exists? Holy crap, still this type of thinking after all these years.
 
It comes down to this - you should be buying the larger 256gb SSD. Period. Here are the reasons why:
1. SSD's are considerably cheaper with many solid (e.g., non Sandforce) drives being at or less than 10% of the $1/Gb mark. Also, there is no price premium between the 128gb and 256gb which there used to be. So, people would buy a 128gb, buy another 128gb 6 months later, and be forced to RAID 0 them together for more space.
2. RAID 0 for SSD's will not give you substancial real life performance increases. Also, the difference between SATA II and SATA III is not very substancial either, and it literally benches twice better in some areas yet still, no great real life performance increases. Benches != real life performance.
3. No TRIM for RAID 0 as of yet. Intel said they were looking into this 4+ months ago. While some SSD's say that there is some sort of garbage collection, I'm not sure how much you can trust that vague information when data is stripped accross multipule drives.

The only reason not to get a 256gb instead of an 128gb is purely financial.
 
love my raid 0 vertex 3 120 setup. and I got it for about $270 ar at newegg when they were on sale. It reads like 228gb i think on my c drive? It's enough to install my 10 favorite games and have over 70gb left to play with. Setup was a breeze and haven't had a hiccup yet. To each their own.

Some people don't drive fast because it's too dangerous. . .
 
You're saying you are provided with real world gains in performance? I would be interested in any solid numbers.
I know for one thing that RAID initialization adds some seconds to POST, so your boot time would have to decrease by at least that much for it to be a real world gain.

Are there applications or games you use that load faster or perform better than they would with a single drive system? How much faster?

Have you got a workaround for lack of TRIM support? How much time do you spend dealing with that workaround? Is this more or less time than you save by having faster performance? If you don't have a workaround is the corresponding performance loss factored against any other gains?

This isn't about being afraid to make sacrafices to gain performance, it's wondering if said performance gains exist, and to what extent and at what true cost. The kind of things that should be considered when modifying pretty much anything imho.
 
Another consideration for a larger drive is as follows, try updating firmware on your ssd when in it's in an array.... my drive unfortunately needs to be in IDE mode to be updated... so when It needs an update I'm forced to either image or reinstall.

Trim is a non issue if your drive has garbage collection (crucial m4, any sandforce etc).

So yeah, get a single drive.

Unless you need to stare at 1 gb/s benchmark scores.
 
RAID0 will only boost sequential read and write in SSD, you don't want to use your SSD in storing and transfering huge files anyway so go with a bigger SSD and be done with it. :)
 
Id go with one larger drive. Thats what I did when debating 1 120gb or 2 60gb.

As for what brand id go with a Crucial M4 and never look back.
 
In my situation, I already had a 128GB SSD (Crucial C300) but wanted a single, larger volume. Buying two 256GB SSDs was out of the question. I though about buy a single 256GB M4 but then I would have the 128GB left over so I went with two 128GB M4s. I created a 384GB Raid0 and I haven't had any issues whatsoever.

Links to benchmark results: http://i.imgur.com/yclp7.png & http://i.imgur.com/UU5A7.png
 
I'm still very skeptical as to the real world gains in performance. Obviously in a reasonably efficient RAID0 setup IOPS and STR capability should scale pretty well, but if normal real world usage rarely if ever taxes either of these things then the gains are mostly theoretical.

I build and upgrade systems for people on a semi regular basis, and I've deployed several SSDs over the last couple years. I don't use them myself, though I've owned a few and ended up selling them on to people who had more to gain from them than I do, as I run Linux almost exclusively, have lots of ram and reboot maybe once a month, and use 15krpm Cheetahs as my OS and work drives. But for Windows users, an SSD does offer considerable gains in performance, no question, and I highly recommend one to anyone looking for a faster Windows box, the difference is not only measurable but it's plainly noticeable.

I want to know if I can make a similar claim about the performance of a pair of SSDs in RAID0 vs a single SSD, and I don't think I can. I don't think I can claim any noticeable performance gain at all really. And this question does come up, among somewhat less knowledgeable users just seeking more performance.

They go on the interweb and do some research and see all these big numbers they don't understand, usually written by people who also don't understand them but they know that 1GB a second is really fast. And they come to me with their money, wanting a pair of SSDs or another one like they bought off me a while ago so they can stripe them together and it will make their computer way faster just like the initial SSD upgrade did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they have been misinformed. And continue to be misinformed on threads similar to this one.

Please correct me if I am wrong, and please do it with some real world performance numbers. Tell me how much faster it gets something done. Ideally something real people actually do. Or just stop misinforming people to justify your own purchasing decisions.
 
FrostBite said:
It comes down to this - you should be buying the larger 256gb SSD. Period. Here are the reasons why:
1. SSD's are considerably cheaper with many solid (e.g., non Sandforce) drives being at or less than 10% of the $1/Gb mark. Also, there is no price premium between the 128gb and 256gb which there used to be. So, people would buy a 128gb, buy another 128gb 6 months later, and be forced to RAID 0 them together for more space.
2. RAID 0 for SSD's will not give you substancial real life performance increases. Also, the difference between SATA II and SATA III is not very substancial either, and it literally benches twice better in some areas yet still, no great real life performance increases. Benches != real life performance.
3. No TRIM for RAID 0 as of yet. Intel said they were looking into this 4+ months ago. While some SSD's say that there is some sort of garbage collection, I'm not sure how much you can trust that vague information when data is stripped accross multipule drives.

The only reason not to get a 256gb instead of an 128gb is purely financial.
Click to expand...

Agreed, good post
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, and please do it with some real world performance numbers.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal, I can show you the increased numbers on charts but no matter what I do you're not going to believe they transform into your "real world performance numbers".

As with anything you know exactly how your machine is running and just can "tell" when there's something wrong.

It's the same thing when moving from one drive to RAID0. While the specs are faster it also translates to better performance. Not a major boost but this is where performance gains/price/opinion come together.

Some think it's worth it, some don't. Just the same as some don't think SSDs are worth it.

In all of my hobbies (cars, computers, audio) it's just the same and you usually spend MUCH more for those last improvements.

You are more than welcome to any opinion but if you haven't lived it you have no personal experience.
 
Old Hippie said:
I can see you've never done it.

If you had, you'd know better. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL. Old Hippie speaks the truth. I don't know why this is so hard for folks to grasp.

I have had 6 sets of RAID0 SSDs now and probably 30+ sets of spinners before that.

The ones that say "I am skeptical about real-world gains" are precisely the people that have never used RAID0, or they don't do anything to take advantage of RAID0.

I have done so much real-world testing through the years I'm worn out and just plain worn out on this subject. If you ask the RAID0 folks about real world gains, you'll get the truth, because they now first hand. Do you ever install Wiindows? Do you ever patch Windows? Do you ever load maps in multiplayer games like BF3? Or load any games for that matter?

All are significantly faster in a RAID0 setup. Again, WTF does RAID0 exist? Because it provides no real world gains? Right.

That said, there is nothing to help the folks that have tried it and saw no difference. They either didn't set it up right, or they lack the ability to notice the speed increases somehow.
 
OK. Here we have something. You say it will boot and patch windows faster, and load game levels faster. That is something. How much faster?? I know what the benchmark graphs and charts look like, I'm talking stopwatch comparisons for things like booting, loading levels, etc. I know if I ever setup another RAID0 that's the first thing I'd be doing is actually CLOCKING some tasks to see what I gained. But you guys are clearly too [H] for that.

RAID0 was invented WAY before SSDs, and was most commonly implemented to overcome the limitations of a single HDD, which are very easy to bump up against even for an average user. This is NOT the case for SSDs, which are rarely taxed to their limits during normal use, which is why I expect minimal gains.

I spent damn near 500 bucks for a pair of 15k U320 Cheetahs a few years ago, you're not talking to someone who isn't willing to spend money and go through pain for a faster system drive. And yes, I even RAID0d them together, and the difference was noticeable, but 2 fast spindles operating seperately proved more useful to my general tasks than a bigger faster one.
 
RAID0 was invented WAY before SSDs
Click to expand...
Yep, but mechanical drives don't respond to RAID the same way as SSDs.

I'd say you only get a 20-25% gain on mechanical drives whils SSDs are closer to 75-80%.

I suggest you just keep recommending single drives and I'll just do what I want.

Like I said before, it's all just opinions but since you have no extensive experience with RAID0 SSDs I'll keep that in mind. :)

I'm done and good luck!
 
Old Hippie said:
Yep, but mechanical drives don't respond to RAID the same way as SSDs.

I'd say you only get a 20-25% gain on mechanical drives whils SSDs are closer to 75-80%.
Click to expand...

I promise you that a pair of HDDs in an efficient RAID0 will show more real world gain than a pair of striped SSDs, because of how much more often a single HDD will be saturated vs an SSD.

This is basic stuff, which you clearly do not understand fully. The principles of striping data don't change between HDDs and SSDs, nor do the reasons for doing so.

I will recommend single SSDs, in the absence of any evidence showing real gains from a more complex and expensive solution. To do otherwise would be a disservice to those I am entrusted to provide services for.

This is not about opinions, at least it damn well shouldn't be. Technology is largely based on science, where you test things and document the results so that others can make use of the data you obtain. I do not want to experiment with SSD RAID0s just to confirm what I'm pretty sure is true, I would prefer someone who claims to have opposite findings to show me how they came to these findings by sharing their data with me. Data is not opinion.
 
Last edited:
another option we haven't figured in, which may fit the OP's criteria of doubling capacity...

Just add a second 120 as a secondary drive.

No more discussions of Raid difficulties.
No worrying about 'what if a drive dies'
Cost is less

As there are potential issues with drives, having a single drive presents possible downtime. If I only have one drive, I have to wait for an RMA, and I can't quickly install Windows on the other one and get back to business.


To be honest, My preference is buy the second 120 and run in Raid 0 for the possibility of a performance increase, with the peace of mind that I could install Windows in about 15 minutes on the one that doesn't die. I hate not being without a computer.

There are about 10 different scenarios here that we could hash out. Each is just as useful and valid as the next.
 
dustNbone said:
I promise you that a pair of HDDs in an efficient RAID0 will show more real world gain than a pair of striped SSDs, because of how much more often a single HDD will be saturated vs an SSD.

This is basic stuff, which you clearly do not understand fully. The principles of striping data don't change between HDDs and SSDs, nor do the reasons for doing so.

I will recommend single SSDs, in the absence of any evidence showing real gains from a more complex and expensive solution. To do otherwise would be a disservice to those I am entrusted to provide services for.

This is not about opinions, at least it damn well shouldn't be. Technology is largely based on science, where you test things and document the results so that others can make use of the data you obtain. I do not want to experiment with SSD RAID0s just to confirm what I'm pretty sure is true, I would prefer someone who claims to have opposite findings to show me how they came to these findings by sharing their data with me. Data is not opinion.
Click to expand...

Again, all coming from someone with no experience on the subject of SSD RAID0.
Play it safe must be your motto. Recommend against what you have no experience with. Got it.
What you have apparantly missed out on is the fact that as fast as SSDs are, they're still a bottleneck. I can bring one to it's knees just as fast as a spinner, and I've got some of the fastest 6G SSDs there are. We've still got years of performance improvements to make to solid state. Your comments tell me you don't have much experience stressing your storage and you have very little time spent with SSDs. We will look back at 6G SSDs and laugh, just like I laugh about my old 4x Velociraptor R0 array. SSDs are still a bottleneck. Of course RAID0 can show real-world gains. Just because storage hardware has caught up closer to what current mainstream software demands of it, doesn't mean its done evolving.
 
I promise you that a pair of HDDs in an efficient RAID0 will show more real world gain than a pair of striped SSDs, because of how much more often a single HDD will be saturated vs an SSD.

This is basic stuff, which you clearly do not understand fully
Click to expand...

LOL!

Whatever you say! :D
 
And still not a single piece of data to back up your claims. You guys should sell home theater equipment at Best Buy.
 
dustNbone said:
And still not a single piece of data to back up your claims. You guys should sell home theater equipment at Best Buy.
Click to expand...

It won't matter - you'll still have your blinders on. You've already made your mind up. I even sense some emotion here - is it that you can't afford it? Why hate on it so much?

I've done the stopwatch thing years ago to my heart's content. I've tried posting facts for years on this and other forums.. Some folks "get it", some like you, don't.

If you hate R0, I could care less - I benefit from it every day. Lovin' the speed. Not many consumer systems faster than a couple of striped 6G SSDs. I WILL beat you to the map, every time.
 
Well, I did some testing with a pair of 256 GB M4s a while ago.

There was a noticeable improvement from a single drive setup in the beginning. After some heavy use that was no longer the case.

I've gone back to using single drives for now, and put the second M4 in another computer. When there are production ready raid drivers with trim support I'll buy another M4 and raid them again.
 
Honestly depends on if your going to use an Intel raid or not. If your going to use an Intel raid wait til Intel releases TRIM support. If the raid you would use isn't going to be Intel based then whatever is cheaper. Personally I think you have a smaller chance of failure with 1 drive configuration verses 2 SSDs in raid 0.
 
Rami100735 said:
Honestly depends on if your going to use an Intel raid or not. If your going to use an Intel raid wait til Intel releases TRIM support. If the raid you would use isn't going to be Intel based then whatever is cheaper. Personally I think you have a smaller chance of failure with 1 drive configuration verses 2 SSDs in raid 0.
Click to expand...

Certain SSD's garbage collection negates the need for TRIM. My Vertex3 array runs plenty fast on my P67's PCH controller without TRIM. Benchmarks after a year in use show no real degradation and real-world use shows no degradtion - way faster than a single Vertex3 in the "applicable" uses.
 
To OP if you have a 120 drive already, and want more space buy another 120 and RAID. It's cheaper than buying a 250. RAID 0 is another one of the issues where not everybody agrees it's worth it and you're going to hear a lot of different opinions. But if all you want is a little more space, why spend a lot more on a 250 drive? The other issue is you in essence double your rate of failure. But that can be remedied. Not sure what's step you have taken but this is what I have done.

I've moved the my music, pictures and videos to my HDD. I have 2x 2TB Samsung F4s in a RAID 1. I also use windows live mesh to sync my documents folder with the cloud. This is so I don't lose any college work or game saves.

Also have it sync to my documents folder on my laptop, so I updated an essay on my laptop, it gets updated on my desktop.

I use Acronis true image home to take a system image of my c drive. To save space for this I partitioned my SSD into a 60 GB drive for the OS and the rest for steam and origin. The image taken is usually only 20 GBs once compressed. But to restore you will have to download an Ultimate boot disk to run if you lose your c drive so you can restore.

I did have 2 120 GB SSDs in a RAID 0, have sold them and got a 256 GB samsung 830. Going to get another one in a few months to do RAID 0 again. I had no issues with RAID before. And the p67 chipset has no issues running a RAID 0 and RAID 1 at the same time. Really I say give it a shot as it's something fun to do as well, as long as you take precautions like I did so you don't lose you data and then lose your mind.
 
Brahmzy said:
It won't matter - you'll still have your blinders on. You've already made your mind up. I even sense some emotion here - is it that you can't afford it? Why hate on it so much?

I've done the stopwatch thing years ago to my heart's content. I've tried posting facts for years on this and other forums.. Some folks "get it", some like you, don't.

If you hate R0, I could care less - I benefit from it every day. Lovin' the speed. Not many consumer systems faster than a couple of striped 6G SSDs. I WILL beat you to the map, every time.
Click to expand...

And then wait for the rest of your buddies to load before you can leave the safe room, happens to me every time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top