2 SSD for boot 2 SSD for programs vs 4 SSD for all

[deckrom]

Getting a new HD setup. Should I go with 2 SSD for boot & 2 for programs, setup with RAID 0 or just use all 4 in RAID 0 and not separate the OS and programs?

Thanks

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Having all 4 SSDs in a single RAID will be better.

 

[boochi]

You will likely max out your reads using 3 SSD's if you are using an intel chipset using the ICH9R or ICH10R. I have 4 OCZ Vertex Turbos and max mine with 3. I would suggest running (2) 2xSSD arrays. You are not going to boot or load any faster with the 3rd and 4th disks in your array. RAID0 arrays are also less reliable the more disks you add. If you want maximum performance from SSD's without capping yourself with onboard software RAID try the LSI9260-4i or 8i. They are hands down the best RAID0 cards for SSD performance.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, you don't use an SSD as a boot/programs drive because of its sequential read/write speeds, you use it for random reads. And I don't think even with 4 SSDs, you max out the ICH10R in random reads.

 

[boochi]

True, you will not max out random reads with even 6 disks. The point is that you are not going to see any real world difference between 2 and 4 disks in an array when using SSD's. I timed booting into windows in 2 and 4 disk SSD arrays and the difference was a fraction of a second and similar results were seen within windows loading large programs. Latency also increases in a RAID0 array when you add more disks which reduces the performance gains of the added drives. More drives do not scale performance linearly.

 

[sgrinavi]

Getting a new HD setup. Should I go with 2 SSD for boot & 2 for programs, setup with RAID 0 or just use all 4 in RAID 0 and not separate the OS and programs?

Thanks

How many programs & what size ssds are you talking about?

 

[nanaki333]

True, you will not max out random reads with even 6 disks. The point is that you are not going to see any real world difference between 2 and 4 disks in an array when using SSD's. I timed booting into windows in 2 and 4 disk SSD arrays and the difference was a fraction of a second and similar results were seen within windows loading large programs. Latency also increases in a RAID0 array when you add more disks which reduces the performance gains of the added drives. More drives do not scale performance linearly.

unless you buy a decent raid card (a real one)

 

[aigomorla]

3 SSD's for your os.

1 SSD for your programs

the 1 SSD should be large and have trim.

3 SSD's is the point where u completely saturate the bus lane in a ICH10R.

You will likely max out your reads using 3 SSD's if you are using an intel chipset using the ICH9R or ICH10R.

+1

which is y i have the most durable SSD's as my raid 0.
And the fastest SSD u can possibly get for my programs / games.

Well its not the fastest anymore, but its still one of the fastest.

unless you buy a decent raid card (a real one)

meh dedicated controllers.. lol...
if ur going to use a dedicated controller for this setup, i dont think you'd be asking for ssd setup advice, as having them all in R0 would win and spank whatever solution u could think of on an ICH10R

 

[deckrom]

How many programs & what size ssds are you talking about?

I was going to use X25-M Intels. 2 40GB for OS + 2 80GB for programs.

To do this correctly, do I just install win 7 on the 2 40GB then move the Program Files (x86) & Program Files folders to the 2 80GB drives and point all of my installs to there?

Will be installing only about 12-15 games, 2 audio programs & Firefox. Not much at all.


[FONT=terminal,monaco]EVGA 132-BL-E758-A1 [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] i7 930 @ 4.0 GHz[/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] 3 x 2GB Corsair Dominator TR3X6G1600C8D 1600MHz 8-8-8-24 [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] EVGA GTX 580 [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] SeaSonic X750 Gold [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] HT Omega Striker 7.1 [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] 2 x WD Caviar Black 640GB RAID 0 [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] Lian Li PC-K62 [/FONT]
[FONT=terminal,monaco] Alienware AW2310 120Hz 23" [/FONT]

 

[groberts101]

Mr Pedantic is right on target. With wider arrays comes more channels.

Boochi does have a point though with some controllers the added latency can be noticable(although still all SSD in nature). Sandforce and (from what I've been told) Crucials do not suffer as much. With my Sandforce 6 drive array there is not one bit of accumulated latency and there is nothing that I can do to slow the array down. In fact, even if the array is dirty/heavily degraded.. it's pretty tough to tell.

And everyone keeps getting caught up on read performance without realizing that all the little simultanious writes being done at the same time can have VERY large impacts on the throughput. Is why you never see a benchmark that reads and writes simultaniously during the test as the numbers drop sharply and wouldn't be very popular to the e-PEENS out there. lol We don't wait for reads.. we wait for writes to complete 9 times out of 10.

and if you think this array isn't faster than 3 drives?.. you only kidding yourself. Bandwidth is like a pie being divy'd up amongst all the different processes. The bigger the pie?.. the more you can do without making any one piece too small. Don't knock something you haven't had first hand experience with. Also keep in mind that with raids.. WIDER is better. If you don't see gains from an added drive?.. then you probably didn't even need raid in the first place.

 

[sgrinavi]

....I was going to use X25-M Intels. 2 40GB for OS + 2 80GB for programs.

I'm not sure why you want to go through all that, I would just stick a pair of 128's in raid 0 and call it a day