(4) 1TB Drives in RAID 5 or (2) SSDs RAID 0?

[prochobo]

I'm having a hard time deciding between the two. Probably going to be using a Dell Perc 5i SAS/RAID controller. I pretty much want speed and responsiveness while multitasking.

One thing I'd like to be able to do is record using FRAPS at over 60 FPS (currently getting high 40's) so that I can actually play the game without slow down. I saw some YouTube vids of systems with SSDs, and I have to say, I was very impressed with the responsiveness from the sheer read speed and instant access times. Do you think a 1TB 4 Drive RAID 5 array could keep up with two lower end SSDs in RAID 0 or vice versa?

I realize the downside would be capacity and redundancy, but there wouldn't be much of a price difference between the two. I was planning on using two cheaper Jmicron OCZ 64GB. From what I've gathered, the problem with the stuttering is because there isn't enough cache, right? I've also heard that a hardware RAID controller with dedicated cache can alleviate the problem. Have I heard correct? Not worried about data loss with the SSDs since I'll probably make incremental images every night.

BTW, how is the real life reliability for SSDs? I hate to be out of the loop, but is the "SSDs are only good for a certain amount of writes" statement valid or is that some old, isolated scare that got blown up? I can see from specs that a lot of SSDs are rated at over 1 million hours MTBF!

 

[Andrew1990]

If speed is the importance here, why not go for 5 or 6 of the new 500GB Single Platter Drives? They would cost the same but offer more performance than the 1TB drives and most likely the SSDs.

 

[yh125d]

Doesn't RAID 5 have very poor write performance, specifically random writes?

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: yh125d
Doesn't RAID 5 have very poor write performance, specifically random writes?

Yes.

If you want to maximize write speed, either do a RAID 0+1 or have a separate RAID 0 and transfer the data to a more "stable" volume after if you are concerned. Personally, I would just run RAID 0 and take my chances (with a good backup schedule in place).

 

[Madwand1]

Sounds like a Mack truck vs. motorcycle comparison to me. RAID 5 is generally best for when you have a lot of cargo to haul. SSD, not so much. The Mack truck / RAID 5 will also be lousy for turns (random access and especially writes), which is where the SSD will shine.

 

[Zap]

Reading the specs, SSDs usually have much slower writes than reads. So, they will be blazing fast in loading your game* but they may not be much faster than fast "normal" drives in writes. For instance, the Intel MLC drive does 250MB/s reads, but only 70MB/s writes. Their SLC drive does the same reads, but much better writes at 170MB/s. However, it costs $410 for 32GB.

I'd say go with a 2 drive RAID0 using either 500GB single platter drives as Andrew1990 suggested, or with VelociRaptors.

*I use a VelociRaptor and I'm usually first loading in COD4... not that it matters as there is a timer to wait for other players, and then a 5 sec timer for game to start.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Also avoid seagate 7200.11 drives. If you're doing video capture in fraps you most likely need tons of disk space, so 4 1TB hitachi drives might do the trick, in raid 0.

SSDs are still not mature enough imo. Until they can find a way so they don't wear out after so many writes, I'd avoid them unless you're ready to spend the money to be replacing them all the time.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Sounds like a Mack truck vs. motorcycle comparison to me. RAID 5 is generally best for when you have a lot of cargo to haul. SSD, not so much. The Mack truck / RAID 5 will also be lousy for turns (random access and especially writes), which is where the SSD will shine.

good analogy, this is apples vs elephants.

 

[taltamir]

OP, you want SPEED? then your choice should be an intel X25-E
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820167013
410$

or 2 or even 3 velociraptors in raid0...

or 4-5 single platter 500GB drives in raid0.

Maybe raid0 the x25-e with a second one and multiply the amount of spindle drives as well.

the intel will win in IO, the veloci will win in small writes and in sequential speed.
The intel will be a lot more reliable, the veloci will be more likely to fail (the array that is)..

Either way if you raid0 then use a backup system.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Sounds pricy for only 32GB though. You could capture maybe like 30 secs of video only and it would be full.

 

[bramdo]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Also avoid seagate 7200.11 drives.

Totally agree, i switched to western digital re3 (more enterprise edit. disks) and they are fine in all raid configs.

 

[ItsAlive]

I'd go with 4x128Gb Gskill Titans raid 0, on an areca controller with atleast 256mb cache, and 4x1Tb Western Digitals for storage to the motherboard. Your system will blaze. I have 1 Patriot warp on an LSI controller and I dont see any lag at all, no slow downs, and windows 7 flys like the wind. I could only imagine 4 drives like the Titans with internal raid being raided.......nuts! Soon I will be testing 4 in raid I hope they scale well.

 

[Tweakin]

Since you are considering multiple SSD's, I'll assume that monies are not in the equation. I would opt for 4 WD Velecoraptors in RAID0, and then have at least 1TB for storage and safety that is not RAID.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
Since you are considering multiple SSD's, I'll assume that monies are not in the equation. I would opt for 4 WD Velecoraptors in RAID0, and then have at least 1TB for storage and safety that is not RAID.

+1, and dont forget to backup your raid0 array to your storage drive.
Actually make it a raid1 mirror of two 1TB drives for storage so your data is really safe.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

SSDs are still not mature enough imo. Until they can find a way so they don't wear out after so many writes, I'd avoid them unless you're ready to spend the money to be replacing them all the time.

While there are still plenty of reasons not to go with an SSD still, the lifetime argument isn't all that relevant. Unless you are doing sequential writes to the drive 24/7, you won't hit the write limts on it until long after you would want to replace it.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

SSDs are still not mature enough imo. Until they can find a way so they don't wear out after so many writes, I'd avoid them unless you're ready to spend the money to be replacing them all the time.

While there are still plenty of reasons not to go with an SSD still, the lifetime argument isn't all that relevant. Unless you are doing sequential writes to the drive 24/7, you won't hit the write limts on it until long after you would want to replace it.

and if you do the same with a spindle drive, it is liable to fail, loosing all your precious data, while an SSD just runs out of writes and becomes a read only device

 

[mooseracing]

Raid 10 with 4-8 SAS drives since you are using a Perc 5 card.

Your Perc card will be your bottleneck.