SSD performance: 2 seperate drives vs RAID 0 vs 1 large drive

homerjs

n00b
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
3
Looking at 3 choices

A. 1 256gb SSD, install OS and apps
B. 2 128gb SSDs in RAID0. Install OS and apps
C. 2 128gb SSDs. OS on 1st drive, apps on 2nd drive.

I know there are performance gains with RAID 0 (forget TRIM for now)

Is there some contention with OS/apps on same drive assuming when app starts a component of windows would start also?

Gonna put data on HHD
 
I would pick A.

I know there are performance gains with RAID 0 (forget TRIM for now)

Very little for typical destop applications since 4K low queue depth operations are not generally improved when you raid.
 
Definitely A. No reason to add unnecessary complexity and risk with RAID 0 when SSD's are already to a point that it would be overkill to say the least. At least in this environment. If it was a price deal then I'd go with what fits the wallet.

Is there some contention with OS/apps on same drive assuming when app starts a component of windows would start also?

Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but the speed of modern SSD's make it irrelevant. Most issues with SSD's have been resolved that would cause under performance. The only thing to really worry about these days is P/E cycles, regardless of what they do I'll never fully trust the saying, "it'll break for other reasons before it wears out".
 
It depends on what you do really.

My preferred setup after lots of testing is independent mid-sized drives (vs raid 0 or one large drive).

I can use it as a scratch drive for my VM's so my main programs and OS dont take a hit on performance/usability.

If you are just running games off it, I would say one large drive is more than sufficient.
Like people have said, random 4k iops dont really improve with raid 0 and a single drive is less cumbersome to the typical user.
 
RAID0 was never worth it on desktop and even less so with SSDs.
 
If by A you mean JBOD, then definately pick C.

having your OS on a JBOD volume gives you the vulnerability of RAID0 without any additional speed... the worst of both worlds.

with option C, if one disk dies, then you only loose whats on that disk (either apps or OS, but not both). with option A, the OS files (and apps, really) can be fragmented between both disks, so if you loose either disk, you loose the whole OS and possibly most or all of your apps (which is now twice as likely than if the complete OS existed on only one disk). the extent of the risk depends on how the disk controller handles JBOD and how it decides which files to put on which disk (and its propensity to split similar groups of files into separate disks).

RAID0 was never worth it on desktop and even less so with SSDs.

it seems you are unfarmiliar with RAID0 and SSDs (or maybe you just dont care about speed)... i like having a 500gb disk with 1.8GB/sec sequential read/write, and 2-300 MB/sec 4k random read/write.
 
Last edited:
it seems you are unfarmiliar with RAID0 and SSDs (or maybe you just dont care about speed)... i like having a 500gb disk with 1.8GB/sec sequential read/write, and 2-300 MB/sec 4k random read/write.
And what is the gain in desktop use, besides prettier benchmark numbers?
 
I would (and do) go with <500GB drives (SSD or Platter) in RAID 0, use your backup solution (you have one, right?) to negate the risks of RAID 0. Backup can be a single large platter drive backing up during down-time or network backup.

The gain in desktop use is faster load times and overall improved storage performance. I get better than 300MB/s on a 4-drive (WD 500GB Black) RAID 0 set.
 
I would just Raid 0 them, I just did it myself and it was painless, gives me one disk to work with with amazing performance. Anything you can't afford to lose should be backed up elsewhere regardless, no?
 
Looking at 3 choices

A. 1 256gb SSD, install OS and apps
B. 2 128gb SSDs in RAID0. Install OS and apps
C. 2 128gb SSDs. OS on 1st drive, apps on 2nd drive.

I know there are performance gains with RAID 0 (forget TRIM for now)

Is there some contention with OS/apps on same drive assuming when app starts a component of windows would start also?

Gonna put data on HHD

I think the thing to realize is that SSDs RAID-0 internally already.
So in theory, 2x 128GB will be slower than 1x 256GB since the RAID-0 in the larger drive is internal (greater bandwidth + lower latency) vs external.
 
I would just Raid 0 them, I just did it myself and it was painless, gives me one disk to work with with amazing performance. Anything you can't afford to lose should be backed up elsewhere regardless, no?


True, and OP probably plans on doing that (regardless of RAID 0 or single drive highly recommended), but with smaller drives to equal the same 256GB drive the RAID 0 really will not offer you much of a boost in performance compared to what you'll already see from 1 SSD. Plus you get the added insecurity that RAID 0 naturally with very little attraction in speed. Now at 256GB x 2 vs 480/512GB you might actually notice some stiff competition because the 480/512's these days are already saturating SATA 3.0 as are newer 256GB drives. But comparing 128 to 256 is a much harder sell unless you're doing massive file transfers or need incredible Read/Write IOPS.

Even then you'd be heavily limited in file transfers from non-SSD devices. So the question will be. Does you app load a couple milliseconds faster or do you really care? lol
 
I like option "B" but you must have a back-up which everyone should have anyway.
 
For me, it depends.

Are two 128GB drives cheaper than a 256GB drive? Do you already have 1 of the 128GB drives and just need more space?

When I bought my two SSD's (crucial M4's) the 128's were less than half of the 256 so I bought two and striped them. I'd rather just have a single drive but I wanted more space.

Whatever, it doesn't affect much in real world usage other than $/GB
 
You can RAID0 if you want but I don't see the point of doing that with slower drives. Usually 128GB drives are slower than 256GB ones. It's like SLI-Xfire, it only makes sense with a pair of the fastest cards there is.
 
You can RAID0 if you want but I don't see the point of doing that with slower drives. Usually 128GB drives are slower than 256GB ones. It's like SLI-Xfire, it only makes sense with a pair of the fastest cards there is.

2 X 128GB drives will easily outperform 1 X 256GB drive.

The only questions are if you're running an Intel board, do you know anything about RAID0 and do you have a back-up plan?

If the answers are "Yes" you'll be fine.
 
2 X 128GB drives will easily outperform 1 X 256GB drive.

...

Please don't discount write amplification.
For writes under 512KB, going RAID-0 will increase wear while performing worst.

So, make sure your RAID-0 stripe size matches the erase block size.
 
Please don't discount write amplification.
For writes under 512KB, going RAID-0 will increase wear while performing worst.

So, make sure your RAID-0 stripe size matches the erase block size.
Write amplication means little to me. SSDs will last for a long time.

You can adjust your block size to match what you're doing.

Larger files use a larger stripe (512KB) but smaller files are better with a smaller stripe.

Regardless, RAID0 definately gives an increase in speed.
 
Go with a single 256gb drive, much more hassle and risk free, and besides, you really don't need more performance! A solid Sammy 840 256gb will last you years of speedy booting.
 
I'm planning on getting 2 x 128GB ssd's to RAID0 also. Prob 2x OCZ Vertex 4 as good price now and good performance. I'll only really use my system for gaming and general use.
I'll get a 256GB HDD for backup.
Are there any good guides any of you have come accross for setting up RAID0 ?
Thanks.
 
Back
Top