SSD Raid0 now or single drive later

[techobrien]

I need any recommendations or feedback on an SSD configuration for my i5 build. I'm going with an SSD for boot / programs because I want it to be faster, cooler, and more quiet than a nice 7200 drive, but at the same time I want to do it for as little $$ as possible (within reason).

Right now I'm debating between:

• 2x 40 GB Mushkin Callisto DX drives in raid0 ($160 total, on sale from Mushkin Direct http://www.mushkin.com/Digital-Storage/SSDs/MKNSSDCL40GB-DX.aspx)
• Holding off and buying a single 90GB - 120 GB SSD towards christmas, hopefully after the new SF-2000 controller comes out

Which would be more cost efficient? I was originally planning on waiting...but damn that's a good deal haha.

BTW I can't yet post in the HotDeals thread , so if someone else would like to post this deal feel free. All Callisto DX SSD's are on sale on their website with varying discounts.
Also, I couldn't find an SSD or hard drive category. If I should be posting this somewhere else please let me know

 

[vsboxerboy]

I'm thinking about this too. My thoughts are that with the lower risk of mechanical failure there is no reason not to go with a RAID 0 array. Prices for smaller disks tend to be lower and if you can have 4x 30GB drive or 1x 120GB drive for the same cost then why not go with the faster solution (RAID 0)

The caveat is (as I understand it) that you lose TRIM support and that you must have a capable RAID card and bandwidth.

 

[techobrien]

I'm thinking about this too. My thoughts are that with the lower risk of mechanical failure there is no reason not to go with a RAID 0 array. Prices for smaller disks tend to be lower and if you can have 4x 30GB drive or 1x 120GB drive for the same cost then why not go with the faster solution (RAID 0)

The caveat is (as I understand it) that you lose TRIM support and that you must have a capable RAID card and bandwidth.

Hmm you've got some very good points there. Any idea on how Intel ICH10 handles those kinds of speeds? I have a 5x750gb Raid5 in my server and it handles that like a champ, but I've never experimented with SSD Raid0

 

[vsboxerboy]

Review on toms:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-performance,2798.html

 

[techobrien]

Review on toms:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-performance,2798.html

Thanks for the article. Definitely some interesting results! I'm a little unconvinced, however, since they used drives with crappy Toshiba chipsets. I would either be using SF-1222 chipsets in the mushkin drives, or the Intel chipset in the X-25V.

Any idea how 2x or 3x of the low-capacity drives with a SF-1222 or Intel chip fare up against a single drive of the same chipset?

 

[bastage]

but damn that's a good deal haha.

Actually no its not... Thats not really a good deal at all.. Your looking at $2/gb x80 (plus you loose a little in the raiding process)).. If your going to spend the money there anyway the 90gb Calisto drive is 1.83 per GB.. Giving you 10 more gb of raw apace for 5 dollars more. & if you simply watch the hot deals forum you will find much better prices. Recently I can recall a couple of deals on sandforce drives dipping into the 1.3x per gb range..

 

[Abula]

I would wait on SSDs, unless you find a really good sale. Intel G3 and Crucial C400 are coming in Q1 2011, and both are suppose to come with better performance than current and with better price/size. Probably even SF 2000 will be coming around the same time to consumers. Good times are coming for ssd early next year.

 

[bastage]

I would wait on SSDs, unless you find a really good sale. Intel G3 and Crucial C400 are coming in Q1 2011, and both are suppose to come with better performance than current and with better price/size. Probably even SF 2000 will be coming around the same time to consumers. Good times are coming for ssd early next year.

Yea & better times will be coming middle of next year, & then even better times late next year..

There is no point in waiting for technology more then a few weeks out.. It changes too fast.. So if you have 160 dollar ssd budget then find the best price/gb ratio you can while still maintaining the performance your after & do it.

 

[techobrien]

Yea & better times will be coming middle of next year, & then even better times late next year..

There is no point in waiting for technology more then a few weeks out.. It changes too fast.. So if you have 160 dollar ssd budget then find the best price/gb ratio you can while still maintaining the performance your after & do it.

Yeah I know I could wait until Jan / Feb and get a new one, but they will be super pricey when they first come out and so I would get a previous-gen drive anyways, and there's no guarantee that the price will drop THAT much to make waiting 2 months worth it.

I'm actually looking at getting 3x X25-V's from someone in the FS forum and doing Raid0 with them for $180. Seems like a pretty decent deal to me and I'm more comfortable going with Intel drives than I am Sandforce due to my recent bad experience with a Mushkin SSD and their RMA department

 

[SirMaster]

I'm thinking about this too. My thoughts are that with the lower risk of mechanical failure there is no reason not to go with a RAID 0 array. Prices for smaller disks tend to be lower and if you can have 4x 30GB drive or 1x 120GB drive for the same cost then why not go with the faster solution (RAID 0)

The caveat is (as I understand it) that you lose TRIM support and that you must have a capable RAID card and bandwidth.

You don't necessarily lose TRIM. If you are running on an Intel chipset they have drivers that support TRIM in RAID 0 and RAID 1. I'm sure other chipset manufacturers aren't far behind their releases too.

 

[techobrien]

You don't necessarily lose TRIM. If you are running on an Intel chipset they have drives that support TRIM in RAID 0 and RAID 1. I'm sure other chipset manufacturers aren't far behind their releases too.

"they have drives" makes it sound like it's only certain models? I'd be running 3x X25-V's on an intel ICH10 board. Should TRIM still work? Either way, can't you run TRIM commands manually anyways and have almost the same end result?

 

[SirMaster]

"they have drives" makes it sound like it's only certain models? I'd be running 3x X25-V's on an intel ICH10 board. Should TRIM still work? Either way, can't you run TRIM commands manually anyways and have almost the same end result?

Sorry, my typo. I meant Intel has drivers. So if you have something like an Intel chipset (ICH10) and are using RAID 0 or 1 on it, TRIM works with any kind of SSDs in the array.

http://www.google.com/search?source...tel+raid+t&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=4488cb887e893d25

 

[techobrien]

Sorry, my typo. I meant Intel has drivers. So if you have something like an Intel chipset (ICH10) and are using RAID 0 or 1 on it, TRIM works with any kind of SSDs in the array.

http://www.google.com/search?source...tel+raid+t&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=4488cb887e893d25

Yee! That's the best news I've gotten in my research. I really think that's a no-brainer then, 3x Raid0 here I come! I think it will end up being faster and more reliable than almost any drive I can get right now, save PCIe drives and the c300. Now I just gotta go sleeve some more sata cables...

 

[Old Hippie]

So if you have something like an Intel chipset (ICH10) and are using RAID 0 or 1 on it, TRIM works with any kind of SSDs in the array.

I'm sorry but Intel clarified that statement about a week later.

TRIM will work in RAID mode but only with discs not included in the array.

No TRIM for dives included in the array.

Directly from Intel.

 

[Flopper]

single disk, if windows 7 due to trim.
wont notice difference with raid0 except trim allows you to have a fast disk over time.
a Intel g2 drive 80gb or 120gb just is a good deal.

 

[bastage]

"they have drives" makes it sound like it's only certain models? I'd be running 3x X25-V's on an intel ICH10 board. Should TRIM still work? Either way, can't you run TRIM commands manually anyways and have almost the same end result?

Seriously.. take it from someone who went from a raid 0 Intel setup (mainstream 80gb drives) to a single x25v.. You don't notice any real difference. I have since upgraded to a larger sandforce drive (90gb) from the x25v, & again no real difference in usage.. all SSD's are fast enough that raiding them only gets you an advantage in benchmarks. Other then that the only reason I would recommend raiding SSD's is when you cant afford a larger drive so your having to buy smaller drives one at a time.

So waht I am saying if you have 180 to spend.. Then look for a deal, you can get a 120gb drive in that range. Even the 120gb Intel x18m was just going for 165 after rebate. You will end up with a better setup with a single SSD then with raid, unless your one of those guys who measures your penis length with PC benchmarks..

 

[Old Hippie]

Seriously.. take it from someone who went from a raid 0 Intel setup (mainstream 80gb drives) to a single x25v.. You don't notice any real difference.

Everyone's experience and perception is different.

I definately noticed a difference going from 2 Intels to 1 but it's not massive just incremental and subject to personal interpretation if it's "worth it" or not.

SSDs scale so well it's pretty much an invitation to RAID them.

I have no problems recommending 2 smaller SSDs in RAID over a single comparable unit if the owner knows the risks and has the knowledge about the care/feeding of RAID arrays.

 

[bastage]

Everyone's experience and perception is different.

I definately noticed a difference going from 2 Intels to 1 but it's not massive just incremental and subject to personal interpretation if it's "worth it" or not.

SSDs scale so well it's pretty much an invitation to RAID them.

I have no problems recommending 2 smaller SSDs in RAID over a single comparable unit if the owner knows the risks and has the knowledge about the care/feeding of RAID arrays.

The difference is so small I would only recommend the smaller drives in raid when there is a cash advantage.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[Old Hippie]

The difference is so small I would only recommend the smaller drives in raid when there is a cash advantage.

Not I.

Had I known that the Crucial 128GB units in RAID0 were gonna be such screamers I'd have paid more for the two rather than the single 256GB unit I purchased.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[techobrien]

Seriously.. take it from someone who went from a raid 0 Intel setup (mainstream 80gb drives) to a single x25v.. You don't notice any real difference. I have since upgraded to a larger sandforce drive (90gb) from the x25v, & again no real difference in usage.. all SSD's are fast enough that raiding them only gets you an advantage in benchmarks. Other then that the only reason I would recommend raiding SSD's is when you cant afford a larger drive so your having to buy smaller drives one at a time.

So waht I am saying if you have 180 to spend.. Then look for a deal, you can get a 120gb drive in that range. Even the 120gb Intel x18m was just going for 165 after rebate. You will end up with a better setup with a single SSD then with raid, unless your one of those guys who measures your penis length with PC benchmarks..

I'm just worried about write speeds. Read speeds are fast enough for me but 35 MB/s is slower than my current desktop drive for write. My objective for raiding is being able to consistently see 120+ MB/s when reading and writing anything. This is also the reason why I'm leaning towards intel instead of SandForce: a lot of my files are already compressed and move like molasses on a SF drive.

And no I don't measure my penis length by PC benchmarks, a ruler does just fine But in all seriousness, I actually decided to go with an i5 instead of an i7 because for my usage I would notice little if any improvement, and I don't need the bragging rights, I just want the performance.

SSDs scale so well it's pretty much an invitation to RAID them.

The Intel x25-v gets more than 2x with 2 drives, and from benchmarks I've read 3 drives gets around 3.5x, both read and write.

I can't find an Intel drive that will hold 120 GB and give me those kinds of speeds for $180. Sandforce, probably I could find one, but after I read this article and about some shady firmware distribution and back room deals, I'm really hesitant to jump on the SF bandwagon. Maybe if I picked up a C300 it would be similar performance...but again not for $180 unfortunately.

 

[techobrien]

single disk, if windows 7 due to trim.
wont notice difference with raid0 except trim allows you to have a fast disk over time.
a Intel g2 drive 80gb or 120gb just is a good deal.

Isn't there a way to manually run trim commands even if it's in a RAID array? I know it won't do it automatically, but It seems like it should be possible to run manually or as a scheduled task.

 

[Old Hippie]

but after I read this article and about some shady firmware distribution and back room deals, I'm really hesitant to jump on the SF bandwagon

That's an old article but the SF drives don't live up to their specs in normal situations.

The Intel x25-v gets more than 2x with 2 drives, and from benchmarks I've read 3 drives gets around 3.5x, both read and write.

I've run both the G1 and G2 drives in RAID but they didn't double any specs.

Mine did about 80 - 85% increase from single to double.

but It seems like it should be possible to run manually or as a scheduled task.

There is no TRIM when the drives are included in a RAID array.

 

[Old Hippie]

As many, you're hung-up on stats.

Get a little personal experience under your belt and start learning in the real world.

 

[techobrien]

As many, you're hung-up on stats.

Get a little personal experience under your belt and start learning in the real world.

Well I've owned two SSD's now...both models on the budget side of things:

• Kingston V-Series 64 GB, worked like a champ. No problems, always achieved advertised speeds, but the write speed was a little slow for some applications so I purchased a:
• Mushkin Callisto DX 40 GB, and as you know from my other post it left much to be desired performance wise (now also Mushkin support wise), and in the end was considerably slower than the Kingston with real life applications.

I also have used a MacBook Pro using an intel X25-m 160 gb drive. 6 months later it's still getting advertised speeds and working excellent.

I've run both the G1 and G2 drives in RAID but they didn't double any specs.

Mine did about 80 - 85% increase from single to double.

I guess as far as real-world applications I would probably only notice an 80-85% increase with two drives (I was basing my 2x speed off of these stats), but with three drives the scaling ratio increases further (according to those who have done it).

I'm not really stuck on one drive or one brand, I just don't want to kick myself in a few months for not looking at this from every angle or investing in something that will end up slower than a regular 7200 drive. Things like TRIM support and how well GC work I want to know up front. I'd love to just buy a bunch of these and test em for myself, but sadly the wallet won't allow for that

 

[bastage]

The sf drives don't get you the advertised speeds. but they still get you better then most other ssd's. read the reviews and most will show you that outcome.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[techobrien]

The sf drives don't get you the advertised speeds. but they still get you better then most other ssd's. read the reviews and most will show you that outcome.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

The biggest problem I have with reviews (and I know there have been great debates about this) is that many use compressible data when testing read / write speeds. From my understanding, since SF drives use heavy compression (they claim near 50%), they will naturally show very good results. On the other hand if you're copying a file which is already compressed, the SF drives lag while good old fashioned Intel which don't use compression will still copy the data at the same rate, compressed or not it has no preference.

I work a lot with already compressed data, so I need the drives to be fast all the time, not just when the data can be compressed by the chip.

 

[bastage]

Here in a few I will copy and duplicate some rar files and tell you what I am actually getting. when I had my x18m's in raid 0 I got between 125 and 130 mega doing this and 25 on the nose with a single x25v. I haven't tried this since I got my vertex 2 though.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[techobrien]

Here in a few I will copy and duplicate some rar files and tell you what I am actually getting. when I had my x18m's in raid 0 I got between 125 and 130 mega doing this and 25 on the nose with a single x25v. I haven't tried this since I got my vertex 2 though.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

Sounds good thanks man. What size is your vertex 2?

 

[bastage]

ok.. I just had a chance to try.. Copying 5.8gb of rar files (8 copy's of hackers in xvid).. Started out of course in the 200's & slowly creep'd down to a sustained 50ish mb/sec. It takes about 1gb or so before it slows all the way down to that amount. The 1st couple hundred megs its still over 200mb's.. For me personally thats definitely ok since I will very very very rarely have anything that big being moved around. All my rar files & archives are typically stored on my server.

Edit:

Sounds good thanks man. What size is your vertex 2?

its a 90gb. Just got it used off the FS/T forums & it arrived on Thursday of last week.

 

[techobrien]

ok.. I just had a chance to try.. Copying 5.8gb of rar files (8 copy's of hackers in xvid).. Started out of course in the 200's & slowly creep'd down to a sustained 50ish mb/sec. It takes about 1gb or so before it slows all the way down to that amount. The 1st couple hundred megs its still over 200mb's.. For me personally thats definitely ok since I will very very very rarely have anything that big being moved around. All my rar files & archives are typically stored on my server.

Got it. Thanks for the stats. 3-4 times a week I will unrar and copy roughly 15-20 gigs of compressed .mkv's and .avi's from my server to my desktop, and then move them back a few days later (get media in, video edit, archive media).

Currently at 45-50 MB/s, my hard drive is the bottle neck. The cap on gigabit is roughly 125 MB/s, and taking into consideration overhead and network congestion I *should* be able to get 100 MB/s from server to desktop, and that's what I'm aiming for.

 

[techobrien]

I have no problems recommending 2 smaller SSDs in RAID over a single comparable unit if the owner knows the risks and has the knowledge about the care/feeding of RAID arrays.

What does the proper care/feeding of an array include? I pretty much let my servers raid5 array using using ICH10 do its own thing, occasionally checking smart statuses and making sure none of the drives dropped out or are doing anything weird.

Are you suggesting like battery backup units for prevention of data loss or something along those lines?

 

[bastage]

Got it. Thanks for the stats. 3-4 times a week I will unrar and copy roughly 15-20 gigs of compressed .mkv's and .avi's from my server to my desktop, and then move them back a few days later (get media in, video edit, archive media).

Currently at 45-50 MB/s, my hard drive is the bottle neck. The cap on gigabit is roughly 125 MB/s, and taking into consideration overhead and network congestion I *should* be able to get 100 MB/s from server to desktop, and that's what I'm aiming for.

Whats your server able to read at? Assuming mechanical drives your bottleneck is still most likely that end, unless your using something like raid 5.

 

[techobrien]

Whats your server able to read at? Assuming mechanical drives your bottleneck is still most likely that end, unless your using something like raid 5.

5x750 GB Raid5 Unfortunately I can't currently stop all disk I/O to get an accurate result, but I'm getting 110 MB/s Read and 70 MB/s write. I suspect had I shut down all my background tasks that i would be over 100 MB/s write as well

 

[bastage]

thats pretty respectable.. For the most part my server has all my tasks automated so I pretty much never have to transfer anything to my desktop. My server is also quite a bit more laxed then yours obviously is as far as disk's go (2x 1.5TB Samsung Eco smarts & a 1TB of the same), but it gets the job done.

 

[Flopper]

Isn't there a way to manually run trim commands even if it's in a RAID array? I know it won't do it automatically, but It seems like it should be possible to run manually or as a scheduled task.

as noted a no go.

ssd main benefits are, fast access, good reads.
using them for videoediting, moving large files, isnt what they are done for consumer wise.
they are made for OS, games, programs, etc..

doing videoediting, etc.-..a raid setup with mechanical drives just makes more sense.

 

[techobrien]

as noted a no go.

ssd main benefits are, fast access, good reads.
using them for videoediting, moving large files, isnt what they are done for consumer wise.
they are made for OS, games, programs, etc..

doing videoediting, etc.-..a raid setup with mechanical drives just makes more sense.

With my new computer a mechanical raid setup just is out of the question. The heat + power usage + noise is something I just don't want in my desktop. Those files aren't stored there for long, maybe a day at most, and I'm also including a 1.5 TB caviar green for long-term storage. I also want the speed there when I do play games, have a bazillion chrome tabs open, etc

 

[techobrien]

thats pretty respectable.. For the most part my server has all my tasks automated so I pretty much never have to transfer anything to my desktop. My server is also quite a bit more laxed then yours obviously is as far as disk's go (2x 1.5TB Samsung Eco smarts & a 1TB of the same), but it gets the job done.

Thanks man I appreciate it . It's come a long way from a hodge-podge of IDE drives running JBOD on freenas, to this. I've tried automating as much as I can, (RSS download feeds, auto-unrar, categorizing files) but sometimes I just like to do stuff the old fashioned way Unrelated topic but I only have a few dozen gigs left on my server and need to move up to some newer / fewer drives. When 1.5 TB disks hit the $50 mark I'll probably do 4x1.5TB or something similar. How do you like your samsung drives?

 

[techobrien]

Hey guys what do you think of 2x Samsung 470 64 GB? Currently $100 at Newegg.... in Raid0 of course

EDIT:

I went ahead and bought them. Thoughts? Will I regret being so quick to pull the trigger? Everything sounds pretty amazing about these drives, and for 5$ / 8 GB more than an Intel drive I feel like I'm getting a good deal (roughly $1.56 / GB)

 

[Old Hippie]

Hey guys what do you think of 2x Samsung 470 64 GB? Currently $100 at Newegg.... in Raid0 of course

Cool!

IDK anyone with those.

Be sure to come back with some stats!

 

[techobrien]

Cool!

IDK anyone with those.

Be sure to come back with some stats!

Sounds good! I'll be posting a build log in the next couple weeks documenting my progress