Crucial m4 to samsung 850 evo

E

EvoFreak

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
179
Hi guys! My crucial m4 256 is running out of space and im planning to get another ssd. What i have in mind is the samsung 850 evo since its on sale here right now locally. Since im buying another ssd, it gave me a thought of why dont i get another m4 and run it in raid 0. Should i just get an 850 evo or get another m4 and run it in raid 0?
 
Get a new 500GB+ SSD and move the entire system to it. Pull the m4 and put it in another system, sell it off, etc.

Unless you're very careful with backups, etc., RAID 0 can be more of a gamble than it's worth. And with SSDs you're not going to really feel any notable speed increase.
 
Since my laptop doesn't have m2 I run 2 x crucial msata ssd and it runs great. The above is paranoid and untrue and not reflective of real world conditions.
 
BlueLineSwinger said:
Get a new 500GB+ SSD and move the entire system to it. Pull the m4 and put it in another system, sell it off, etc.

Unless you're very careful with backups, etc., RAID 0 can be more of a gamble than it's worth. And with SSDs you're not going to really feel any notable speed increase.
Click to expand...
Bad info.
 
Putting all of the above aside, I see that on Amazon, a 500GB Samsung 850 EVO is $147 while a 256GB Crucial M4 is $175. Meanwhile, I'm not sure if I understand the benchmarks correctly but I think an 850 EVO might be nearly as fast as two Crucial M4s in RAID 0 in some ways and a lot faster in many other ways.

So it depends on how much another M4 will cost the OP, but if it's like on Amazon, it's hard to recommend spending more for less performance.
 
RAID 0 SSDs does not provide any meaningful speed boost in most general and gaming situations. RAID 0 benefits high QDs and sequential performance, while not so much low QD random operations, which is what most OS usage and gaming usage is. A single faster SSD will be faster than 2 slightly slower RAID 0 SSDs for users on this site.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1535527/ssd-raid-0-stripe-size-differences-benchmarks-raid-0-mixing-different-drives-vs-same-drive-benchmarks

Note the basically identical performance between a single 850 EVO and 2 850 EVOs in RAID 0 for 4k read performance, and a performance loss going to RAID 0 for 4k write. The M550 suffers a performance loss in both 4k read and write going from single drive to RAID 0.

Unless you absolutely really want to combine both drives into a single drive letter, or need high sequential and/or high QD performance, I would never put SSDs in RAID 0.
 
BlueLineSwinger said:
Get a new 500GB+ SSD and move the entire system to it. Pull the m4 and put it in another system, sell it off, etc.
Click to expand...
Best advice so far even though the second half of the post about RAID 0 being a gamble isn't necessarily true.
evilsofa said:
Putting all of the above aside, I see that on Amazon, a 500GB Samsung 850 EVO is $147 while a 256GB Crucial M4 is $175.
Click to expand...
That right there is the real reason he shouldn't do it. The upgrade alone nets him very little real-world performance gain for the same price as a brand new unit. There might be some niche scenario where he gets a decent benefit, but does the OP fit that niche? The older units are EOL, and as a result will fetch a higher price due to low supply and high demand. Anyone buying these older units at this point are more than likely RAID users looking to rebuild an array due to a dead drive.
 
Plus if RAID 0 with SSDs I would want two drives with the same wear/usage ratio on them.
 
Im running 2x 250gb Samsung Evo's at the moment. Aside from benchmarks (1.1gb/s), it seems I'm having seek lag. not alot, but I think running 1 ssd is more responsive. unless you are doing alot of file transfers I wouldnt recommend it. Its not slow by any means, but the next time i reinstall i'm seperating my SSDs. just my 2 cents.
 
Tsumi said:
RAID 0 SSDs does not provide any meaningful speed boost in most general and gaming situations. RAID 0 benefits high QDs and sequential performance, while not so much low QD random operations, which is what most OS usage and gaming usage is.
Click to expand...

This! A hundred times!

Raid0 SATA SSD is hardly ever useful. It only serves as an e-penis extension for the user, at the expense of being less-reliable.

Besides, any half-decent NVME drive will smoke that shit...
 
rsq said:
This! A hundred times!

Raid0 SATA SSD is hardly ever useful. It only serves as an e-penis extension for the user, at the expense of being less-reliable.

Besides, any half-decent NVME drive will smoke that shit...
Click to expand...

yes you mean the only 2 that actually exist that are also a lot more money? Also as i have stated many times there are many usage cases where they are beneficial.
 
Nephron said:
Bad info.
Click to expand...

Show of hands on how many people here have had a SSD drop from an array.

*Handup*

Unless you're getting regular backups, doing RAID-0 for your primary storage is DUMB. With a capital "WTF ARE YOU THINKING?"
 
Chas said:
Show of hands on how many people here have had a SSD drop from an array.

*Handup*

Unless you're getting regular backups, doing RAID-0 for your primary storage is DUMB. With a capital "WTF ARE YOU THINKING?"
Click to expand...

*raises hand twice*

I agree with the advice of getting one big SSD. I use a 1TB SSD equivalent to the Evo and a HDD for backups. Once you are in SSD land you won't see much of a difference between them unless you are doing hundreds of encodes as your professional job (moving large files all the time), ect. I found my game load time is more bottlenecked by my processor...

I've in the past I've done up to 3x R0 out of curiousity and couldn't tell a difference.
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
*raises hand twice*

I agree with the advice of getting one big SSD. I use a 1TB SSD equivalent to the Evo and a HDD for backups. Once you are in SSD land you won't see much of a difference between them unless you are doing hundreds of encodes as your professional job (moving large files all the time), ect. I found my game load time is more bottlenecked by my processor...

I've in the past I've done up to 3x R0 out of curiousity and couldn't tell a difference.
Click to expand...

People who have the R2 do RAID 0 with 3 drives all day long with SSDs for years and none complained about data loss. It happens with and without RAID 0 the point is your worrying far too much about data loss in regards to RAID 0. You act as if any RAID 0 is ridiculous and it simply isn't true. I plan on putting all my games/desktop data on a RAID 0 when those MX200 1TBs go on sale. And there are many reasons why this will be a god send to move to RAID 0 over 2 independent drives.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
People who have the R2 do RAID 0 with 3 drives all day long with SSDs for years and none complained about data loss. It happens with and without RAID 0 the point is your worrying far too much about data loss in regards to RAID 0. You act as if any RAID 0 is ridiculous and it simply isn't true. I plan on putting all my games/desktop data on a RAID 0 when those MX200 1TBs go on sale. And there are many reasons why this will be a god send to move to RAID 0 over 2 independent drives.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying don't EVER use RAID-0.
I'm saying two things.

1: The perceptual difference between a single SSD and a RAID-0 of SSDs is roughly ZERO. The only way to tell is through the use of benchmarking software.

2: Trusting your primary data drive to RAID-0 without a decent backup plan is DUMB. As in "Beavis and Butthead", except nobody's laughing.

Sure, your data MAY be totally worthless. But that's beyond the scope of this. There's always an assumption that data has inherent worth, even if infinitesimally small, to the owner.

You ready to kiss a couple years of e-mails, work documents, logs, and your password list goodbye?
 
Chas said:
I'm not saying don't EVER use RAID-0.
I'm saying two things.

1: The perceptual difference between a single SSD and a RAID-0 of SSDs is roughly ZERO. The only way to tell is through the use of benchmarking software.

2: Trusting your primary data drive to RAID-0 without a decent backup plan is DUMB. As in "Beavis and Butthead", except nobody's laughing.

Sure, your data MAY be totally worthless. But that's beyond the scope of this. There's always an assumption that data has inherent worth, even if infinitesimally small, to the owner.

You ready to kiss a couple years of e-mails, work documents, logs, and your password list goodbye?
Click to expand...

I do nightly back ups so yea...not concerned. Also an additional reason why RAID 0 is great. I have given at least 5 reasons why RAID 0 for me and many people is a life saver and makes a noticeable difference. And NVMe falls in the same boat.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
People who have the R2 do RAID 0 with 3 drives all day long with SSDs for years and none complained about data loss. It happens with and without RAID 0 the point is your worrying far too much about data loss in regards to RAID 0. You act as if any RAID 0 is ridiculous and it simply isn't true. I plan on putting all my games/desktop data on a RAID 0 when those MX200 1TBs go on sale. And there are many reasons why this will be a god send to move to RAID 0 over 2 independent drives.
Click to expand...

There were some issues with RAID and SSDs back when I was doing it. It was a known issue. Could all be fixed now.
 
You can also "combine" the two SSD's in Windows. It will still show up as one drive letter, but you will only access 1 at a time....saves some wear. However you still have data loss if one of them goes bad.

Its called spanning in windows
 
westrock2000 said:
You can also "combine" the two SSD's in Windows. It will still show up as one drive letter, but you will only access 1 at a time....saves some wear. However you still have data loss if one of them goes bad.

Its called spanning in windows
Click to expand...

your talking about JBOD right? but some retarded windows name for it?
 
Raid 0 can be a lot of fun. My sig rig runs it. I get this as a benchmark:

fBSytOZ.jpg


My backup plan is simple.

1 - Nothing is stored on my local box except steam
2 - Office apps are in the cloud
3 - Personal docs and photos I deam to important for cloud storage are on my external Raid 5 + spare drive NAS
4 - Acronis does scheduled backups of the OS partition
 
^^ that's great but in real life usage someone could rip out one of those SSDs and you would likely never even notice because as noted, day to day usage does not benefit from Raid 0 unless you actually do heavy QD's / sequential writes / reads, usually relating to media work of some sort.
 
MrGuvernment said:
^^ that's great but in real life usage someone could rip out one of those SSDs and you would likely never even notice because as noted, day to day usage does not benefit from Raid 0 unless you actually do heavy QD's / sequential writes / reads, usually relating to media work of some sort.
Click to expand...

or full drive scans.... my god....it takes near a day to AV/AM a 3 TB hard drive or half a day for unRAIDed SSDs -_- If your working with more then 1 TB of SSD just RAID those bitches to get rid of 6 hour AV scans. For whatever reason AV still wont scan all drives at once....like seriously? I have 4 and 6 core CPUs and I can't scan more then 1 drive at a time? Another reason why my MX200s are being RAIDed. I am tired of my AV running 50% of the day.
 
westrock2000 said:
Yes they are same thing, though JBOD sounds more retarded then spanning in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's also quite a bit more convenient. You can plug any of the drives (or all drives) in any Windows machine 8.1 and greater and see all the data still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top