2-80 gb ssd in raid 0 or 1-160gb, no raid

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

littlebitstrouds

Senior member
Feb 17, 2003
410
0
76
I'm building a new pc and I'm deciding if I want to use two intel x25-m 80gb drives in raid 0 (currently use raid 0 with a pair of 250gb normal drives) or just get one 160gb x25-m. I'm somewhat computer savvy but most times feel like the hassle of raid in the few machines I've built isn't worth it, however I'm pretty sure ssd drives scale better with raid so I may be persuaded. I'll probably be going with the EVGA E758-A1 x58 board and using on board raid, so maybe I wouldn't even be using all the throughput of the raid anyway? Any thoughts?
 
A

Ayah

Platinum Member
Jan 1, 2006
2,512
1
81
I'd probably go with a single 160GB just for sake of convenience.

2 80GBs in raid 0 should give you mucho better performance, but it could be a pain in the ass if one drive hits a road bump and brings your raid down with it.
 
L

littlebitstrouds

Senior member
Feb 17, 2003
410
0
76
Ayah said:
I'd probably go with a single 160GB just for sake of convenience.

2 80GBs in raid 0 should give you mucho better performance, but it could be a pain in the ass if one drive hits a road bump and brings your raid down with it.
Click to expand...

You basically have the pc I'm looking to piece together in the next few days, How quite is that setup? since it's a pc in my bedroom, I was hoping it was naturally quite, if not, probably going to outfit it with some water cooling options.
 
Q

qazwsxokmijn

Member
Dec 7, 2009
120
0
0
RebateMonger said:
Yeah. You are taking something that should be nice and fast and reliable and adding another failure point or two for very little benefit. I'd recommend the single-disk route.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have had one X25-M G2 for only a few days now but it's fast enough....perhaps more than enough. The only slow thing now is the monitor which takes a wee while to change display when the desktop would actually have been ready.
 
A

Ayah

Platinum Member
Jan 1, 2006
2,512
1
81
It's pretty quiet, I've got a bunch of Adda and Scythe fans stuck in it. Kept the stock 140mm until I find a good replacement.

I also took off the stock northbridge fan and let it run passively. The fan from my U-120E draws a bit of air over the northbridge (right in front of it). The stock NB fan screws with the airflow in my case because it draws air from the CPU side and blows it out to the side. Trying to fight the 120mm on my U-120.
I also added a couple pieces of processor box cardboard (S939 boxes) to create a ghetto windtunnel for the 120mm at the back to draw air from the massive mosfet sink.
 
Yuriman

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
I run 2x80's in raid-0. Has anyone heard of an Intel SSD failing?


I don't think you have anything to fear from a raid array, personally didn't see a reason not to get 2 80's.
 
P

Phanuel

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2008
2,304
2
0
Aren't SSD also different from traditional spinning media in that they can detect when a portion of them is no longer able to be written to and notify the OS of this fact. They'll retain what was written to that spot from that point on but it can no longer be changed. So over time as the drive slowly dies your data is still 100% readable, it's just not changeable anymore? Catastrophic HD failures should be limited with these drives.
 
Yuriman

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
AFAIK the data in those sectors is just copied to working sectors, and those sectors are marked as unusable. The drive will shrink over time, but remain 100% writable and lose no data.
 
J

jnmfox

Member
Jan 26, 2005
83
0
0
Yuriman said:
I run 2x80's in raid-0. Has anyone heard of an Intel SSD failing?


I don't think you have anything to fear from a raid array, personally didn't see a reason not to get 2 80's.
Click to expand...

You will lose the ability to TRIM if you put two in RAID. I would go with one 160GB.
 
J

jnmfox

Member
Jan 26, 2005
83
0
0
Last edited:
solofly

solofly

Banned
May 25, 2003
1,421
0
0
Initially I was gonna go with two 80gb drives, then three, in RAID 0 and ended up with a single 160GB drive. Until TRIM is fully supported under Raid 0 I personally wont bother...
 
Yuriman

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
I believe non-TRIM'd raid is still faster than a single drive with TRIM.
 
E

Emulex

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2001
9,759
1
71
i'd get 4 kingston 40gb in raid-0 that should dominate both of those solutions
 
RaistlinZ

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,470
9
91
Yes, non-TRIM Raid 0 is still much, much faster benchmark wise. Just depends on what you value more. I'm not sure how much it relates to real world benefit though.

Personally, I would want TRIM support before RAID support. SSD's are already fast as it is. And it's hard to know which current SSD's will receive TRIM/RAID drivers in the future. If it were me I'd get an 80GB Intel drive and pick up another down the road if/when the offer TRIM/RAID.
 
Last edited:
P

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,181
23
81
Emulex said:
so 4 x kingston 40gb intel in raid-0 = anyone got benchmarks?
Click to expand...

Wow, so you want quadruple the failure rate instead of double? (Actually, statistically I believe you multiply the failure rate, not just add) Most of us like our data. I know a SSD isn't exactly a Deathstar & you're not likely to use it as data storage, but still.... 1 160gb G2 FTW for me.
 
P

pyrowipe

Junior Member
Jan 30, 2010
3
0
0
Has anyone brought up the Cost comparison?

Based on what I was looking at Intel Drives seem to be dominating, so I'm going to use those for my example.

40GB drive 129.99 via Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167025

80GB drive 289.95 via Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167016

160GB drive 599.00 via Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167024

The total for each:

40GB x 4 = $519.96

80GB x 2 = $579.90

160GB x 1 = $599.99

From my point of view.. I'm going ONLY going to put games and applications on the SSD and all my other data on my TB drives... Meaning with a drive taking a dump I can just reinstall and not loose anything but a little time. Are there any very compelling reasons to not save the 80bucks given my situation? reliability isn't much of an issue and price vs performance is...

Thanks for any and all input.
 
Q

qazwsxokmijn

Member
Dec 7, 2009
120
0
0
Trust me when a drive fails, reliability IS an issue. :p

I would just get the 160GB period. It's just less hassle and the fact that it is the most reliable being non-RAID, is extremely fast, and has the secks value, makes it more appealing to me.
 
B

Bladen

Member
Aug 19, 2004
47
0
0
Yeah, but who knows what the reliability of the average SSD, or in this case a "mainstream" Intel SSD, compared to an average HDD.

If SSD's are an order of magnitude more reliable, than even I will RAID away (in the future when they are better value for money). If they are about the same or only slightly better, than I probably won't, even though I too would only an SSD them for OS, general apps, and games.

Despite the fact that they do gradually lose capacity, they would not be immune to other kinds of electrical component failure. I have had usb drives fail on me, and they are more simple versions of 2.5in or 3.5in SSD's
 
P

pyrowipe

Junior Member
Jan 30, 2010
3
0
0
I know how it works I've had a drive in raid take a dump on me before... its annoying, but not that big a deal for me. I have also heard that the SSDs are much more reliable. Nothing confirmed yet, but this also makes it sound like a better option for Raid.

I found this video while looking for more information get me pumped for Raid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs

Any thoughts on the performance gain over 4x 40GB vs 1 160GB?

Leaving reliability and now price out of the equation? Can someone speak to the performance difference? Trim vs 4drives in a Raid 0? Not to mention the possibility for future Raid Trim....

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom