SSD boot drive + Raid 0 HDD?

R

rtd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
171
I picked up the 30gig vertex ssd from microcenter for 59.99 ar and 2 samsung f3 1tb's for the same price each.I was just making sure there isn't any reason why I wouldn't want to or be able to have the OS + a few apps on the SSD and then everything else in raid-0 on the HDD's. If there are any tips on setup I would welcome them.All I have read tells me that I would lose out on TRIM on the SSD, is that the only issue and if so is it that much of a detriment?

Board is a Gigabyte p55

I would have liked to have gotten a bigger SSD but I simply can't afford anything more than what I've spent on storage.Honestly, if it weren't for the SSD sale I wouldn't have gotten one.
 
Last edited:
Plan is good but there is one thing - in RAID-0 if one drive fails, you loose everything in array. Go for it if you have backup for RAID array.
 
Yea, I have an external 2TB that I keep all my important stuff on as a back up. Now just to clarify, if there was a failure in either of the drives it only means I would lose the data not both drives.Correct? I know this seems like a dumb thing to ask, it's just that I want to make sure that I've got everything covered and know my costs/downtime if something goes wrong.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the OP wrong in thinking that he loses TRIM on the SSD just because he's going to be running two other drives in a RAID0 array?

If the drive supports the TRIM command then it should work in an optimal configuration using the TRIM command so long as the drive isn't part of a RAID array.

And OP, you'll be just fine running the two other drives in a RAID array regardless. Nothing says a RAID0 array has to be the 'boot drive'. As long as you've got the proper drivers installed the RAID is pretty much transparent to the operating system and you can use it however you want, even partitioning it into several logical drives.
 
If the drive supports the TRIM command then it should work in an optimal configuration using the TRIM command so long as the drive isn't part of a RAID array.
Click to expand...

Yep!
 
Blue Falcon said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the OP wrong in thinking that he loses TRIM on the SSD just because he's going to be running two other drives in a RAID0 array?

If the drive supports the TRIM command then it should work in an optimal configuration using the TRIM command so long as the drive isn't part of a RAID array.

And OP, you'll be just fine running the two other drives in a RAID array regardless. Nothing says a RAID0 array has to be the 'boot drive'. As long as you've got the proper drivers installed the RAID is pretty much transparent to the operating system and you can use it however you want, even partitioning it into several logical drives.
Click to expand...

Old Hippie said:
Yep!
Click to expand...

Thanks! That's good to know.
 
In my rig I have the OS on a 640 GB WD black drive and my applications on a RAID 0 array of 3 64 GB SSDs.

I don't see the point of wasting a bunch of expensive SSD space for the OS on a desktop. It would certainly boot faster, but once the OS loads it sits in RAM anyway. Using the SSD for frequently used applications and the HDD for the OS/data/everything else keeps things simple (no tweaking necessary/minimal writes to the SSD) and maximizes the amount of SSD space you have for apps.

Besides that, Windows seems to always be doing some minor reads/writes on the boot drive to optimize performance. The current generation of SSD's are a lot better at dealing with mulltiple read/write requests and don't "stutter" like first-gen drives, but putting the OS on the SSD does slow it down to some extent.
 
Last edited:
In my rig I have the OS on a 640 GB WD black drive and my applications on a RAID 0 array of 3 64 GB SSDs.
Click to expand...
Unusual, you have yours set-up exactly opposite of the conventional way.
 
Here's what I would do.

Set up the SSD and 1 HDD for Raid 0 that way it solves your storage space issues along with making the drive even faster than a single SSD by itself. Then take your other 1 TB drive and turn it into a mirror for the Raid 0 array. You might have to make the partition on HD 1 smaller so that HD2 can mirror properly. Basically a set up of Raid 0 + 1...just seperately.
 
Old Hippie said:
Unusual, you have yours set-up exactly opposite of the conventional way.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I've tried it both ways, the "SSD-for-apps-only" configuration seems best to me. As I said:
1. The OS sits in RAM, putting it on a SSD doesn't really make Windows snappier. It just loads faster.
2. Putting the OS on the SSD takes up a lot of valuable space.
3. Putting an OS on any drive will generally slow that drive down, not good when you want super-fast access to data on that drive.

An SSD boot drive makes sense for certain scenarios like laptops and quiet PCs. Someday when I can get a 500+ GB SSD cheap I'll get one to use a boot/data drive, but until then I'll just use SSDs for apps.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
In my rig I have the OS on a 640 GB WD black drive and my applications on a RAID 0 array of 3 64 GB SSDs.

I don't see the point of wasting a bunch of expensive SSD space for the OS on a desktop. It would certainly boot faster, but once the OS loads it sits in RAM anyway. Using the SSD for frequently used applications and the HDD for the OS/data/everything else keeps things simple (no tweaking necessary/minimal writes to the SSD) and maximizes the amount of SSD space you have for apps.

Besides that, Windows seems to always be doing some minor reads/writes on the boot drive to optimize performance. The current generation of SSD's are a lot better at dealing with mulltiple read/write requests and don't "stutter" like first-gen drives, but putting the OS on the SSD does slow it down to some extent.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your outlook but 30gb is not enough for more than OS + essentials. I mainly game,watch movies, and make videos. Games only load faster and since I play mostly multiplayer games, I am waiting on other people to load anyway.As far as single player goes I can handle a slightly slower RAID set up. My steam folder is more than 120gb not to mention the non steam games. Sure I could trim it down a bit, but why?
I would love to have a 300ish gb SSD for my main applications/games/os.However it's just not feasible at this time.
 
peanutskeeter said:
Thinking the same thing...?? I understand his logic behind it but it's still not conventional.
Click to expand...

You're doing better than me.

My OS + programs are under 30GB so I guess it's a moot point for me.

If his OS slows an SSD it must really slow a mechanical drive.

AFAIK there's nothing a mechanical drive can do faster than an SSD but I'm not in his shoes and can't see what he's seen.
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
If his OS slows an SSD it must really slow a mechanical drive.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we're on the same page here...

The OS adds some extra overhead to whatever drive it's installed on. This isn't a big deal on modern mechanical drives. It's more noticable on SSDs because SSD reads are so much faster than writes, particularly on first-gen SSDs that had crappy controllers that didn't handle multiple read/write requests well. It's not really a problem with the current gen drives, but it's still an issue for people like me who don't have the latest gen SSDs.

The main issue I have is that SSD space is expensive and putting the OS on a SSD doesn't provide much benefit beyond faster boot times. It makes more sense to use that valuable space for applications. Your OS sits in RAM once the computer is booted, it's going to be snappy regardless of whether you boot from a HDD or SSD.

AFAIK there's nothing a mechanical drive can do faster than an SSD but I'm not in his shoes and can't see what he's seen.
Click to expand...
I never said SSDs weren't faster... If they were cheaper I'd go all-SSD.
 
The main issue I have is that SSD space is expensive and putting the OS on an SSD doesn't provide much benefit beyond faster boot times.
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me to put your OS and programs on the fastest media avaliable.

If your're going to bring expense into the equation that's a whole new ballgame.

I started with the GSkill/JMicron SSDs @ 1.5 yrs ago and have been thru many improvements but your logic doesn't mirror my experiences.

You are the only person I've ever conversed with that has that type of set-up.

That doesn't mean you're wrong but you're not gonna convince me to change. :D
 
Old Hippie said:
It makes sense to me to put your OS and programs on the fastest media avaliable.
Click to expand...

Programs obviously, but why the OS? What real benefit is there beyond faster boot times?

I guess IE, calculator, and other Windows apps will open a fraction of a second faster. Is that worth 10+ GB of SSD space? The Superfetch feature of Vista/7 will automatically cache frequently used apps in RAM anyway.

Of course, this only matters if you have more stuff than will fit on your SSD. How you have less than 30 GB of stuff is beyond me. :)
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Programs obviously, but why the OS? What real benefit is there beyond faster boot times?

I guess IE, calculator, and other Windows apps will open a fraction of a second faster. Is that worth 10+ GB of SSD space? The Superfetch feature of Vista/7 will automatically cache frequently used apps in RAM anyway.

Of course, this only matters if you have more stuff than will fit on your SSD. How you have less than 30 GB of stuff is beyond me. :)
Click to expand...

It would be to me, many of your application converse with Windows folders to bring up their data. Hence Windows being on the SSD. I can definitely see your viewpoint since you only have 30 GB to work with. Do what ya like man! It's your computer! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top