2 SSD's - 1 for OS & 1 for Programs ?

[scaryfast]

I'm building a new system using 2 - 264Gb SSD's. (Not yet purchased.)

Would the 2 SSD's be better used separately so that both disks can work on separate tasks at the same time or as a RAID 0.

Also, I'm not a tweaker or a power user, so, if Trim is unavailable for RAID 0 should I steer clear of it?

The system is expected to be similar to the following...
.........................................................................
2 - 264GB SSD's
Windows 7 64 Bit
3570k CPU
Z77
8 to 16 GB memory
Perhaps an HDD for Archiving

 

[turn_pike]

Did you mean 256GB or 64GB SSD ?
Either way, Windows 7 aint gonna take more than around 20GB in space.

 

[sgrinavi]

If you're talking about one of the new gen SATA III SSDs then using them in RAID 0 is not going to yield a significant difference.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/kigston-hyperx-ssd-raid0_7.html#sect0

 

[bryanW1995]

That summary from xbit isn't very helpful, at least in this particular case.

1. 256 gb and 512 gb ssd's are generally around the same speed, so raid0 with 256 gb drives is roughly twice as fast in sequential performance.

2. Trim for raid0 should be out very soon, the drivers are already out for win8 and in beta on win7. Regardless, gc is so good on modern drives that in most cases Trim is not necessary.

3. Access times are significantly faster with raid0 as well. I'll post a couple of screenshots of my m4s in single and raid0 modes when I get back to my computer.

FYI, I noticed a huge difference when going from single drives to raid0, though I was coming from an older ssd. If you don't like to tinker and you have never used ssd's before then even without raid0 it will seem blazingly fast.

 

[Coup27]

I'm one of these people who likes to build the fastest reliable setup which gives the most flexibility if/when things take a turn for the worst. Those 830's are up there as one of the fastest and reliable SSD's on the market so I think you will be more than happy with the speed of a single device.

Keeping them seperate will allow TRIM to function and also if anything ever goes pear shaped you won't lose all your data like you would in a RAID0. We've had many horror stories in this forum alone about people being up s-creek when their RAID takes a wobble and thats worth far more to me than the difference between a single SSD or 2 in RAID0, which isn't that much to be honest.

 

[vol7ron]

Would the 2 SSD's be better used separately so that both disks can work on separate tasks at the same time or as a RAID 0.

I'd say to keep things easy on yourself. You're not going to notice much difference in Raid-0, whereas you will notice a bigger difference with the newer controllers out there.

Also, I'm not a tweaker or a power user, so, if Trim is unavailable for RAID 0 should I steer clear of it?

If you're not a tweaker or a power user, again, stay away from Raid 0. Raid-0 was really beneficial for HDDs and early SSDs. You saw a significant improvement for HDDs, but you always chanced a failure, which I encountered several on my 4xRaptor setup. Sure, if you RAID your SSDs there might be some improvement, but those will mostly be in the numbers. That's like trying to get your system to open up MS Word to the fastest nano-second, which really is of no consequence to the average user, or even most power users, just enthusiasts.

My Next Setup
What I'm planning to do for my next setup, which may help you:
- System/Application Disks: 2 x SSD (256GB-512GB)
- Temp Storage Disk: 1 x SSD (~30GB)
- Media Disks: ? x HDD (2-5TB)
- Backup Disks: ? x HDD (5-10TB) / Possibly Raided-NAS (not Raid-0)

The important thing to take away is the Temp storage disk, which I plan to put temp/scratch/page file/hibernation/local-backup kind of data on. Why? Only to do some pre-emptive filtering, to extend the life of the main drives.

Even if the life expectancies aren't supposed to be that bad (supposed to last a while), I still don't trust ratings; especially, new devices that are rated for lifespans, which are longer than the product has even been around. There are two many electro-mechanical phenomenon that exist (magnetism, thermals, use) that may screw a drive up over it's rated lifespan. So having a temporary disk, which should crap out before the main drives not only gives you a heads up/warning to ensure you have good backups, but it is data that you can more afford to lose, if the drive has met it's maximum use.

 

[bryanW1995]

According to your post from another thread just a few minutes ago, you are waiting for ssd prices to drop to 25¢/gb. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33517593&postcount=16


Are you planning this hypothetical build in 3-4 years or something?


@OP: here are the promised screenies:


Single drive:

Raid0:

4k Random read is the only area that doesn't significantly improve with RAID0. Access times are almost exactly halved with writes, and they drop by about a 1/3 in reads as well. And the "feel" is enormously faster as well, though that will be largely based upon your usage pattern.

 

[scaryfast]

Thanks for those benchmarks bryanW1995.

Since I don't have benchmarks on how much faster it would be if the 2 disks were used separately, I'm going to be power-user enough to set them up in Raid 0 for now.

Thanks to all the thoughts and insights from everyone.