Going all SSD. Not sure what to buy?

[bgstcola]

Hello, I sit several hours in front of my computer everyday doing a bit of everything (Photoshop/Lightroom, programming, ms-office, gaming etc.)

I'm planning on going all SSD for my next build. I need a 400-500gb OS ssd and 2tb for data.

I'm considering

• Samsung 950 512gb or Intel 750 400gb for OS.
• Samsung 850 pro 2tb or 2 mx200 1tb in raid-0.

It seems like the 950 pro is faster but the Intel 750 is a safer choice?

I'm not sure about running ssd's in raid since I have never used raid before (It has never seemed worth the trouble but that might be ignorance).

My priorities are as follows:

1) Reliability
2) Speed
3) Price

I run Crash Plan online backup service so it is not because I'm worried about my data. I'm worried about the inconvenience if one of my SSD's dies. I have some very busy periods where I simply don't have time for computer trouble.

Any advice?

Thanks!

 

[Phynaz]

Raid 0 essentially halves reliability if that is really your top priority. I would go Intel if reliability is important.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

You have a lot more nerve than I do if Crash Plan is your sole backup.

Re Samsung: I've seen a lot of reports about difficulty with RMA procedures if you should ever need to return a defective drive. It's up to you to decide how important that is given your worries about inconvenience and not having time. The Samsungs are good performers, but there is some chance you'll need to RMA.

The general word I've heard is that RAID doesn't add much to an SSD setup in a typical use scenario. But you may have some unusual requirements.

 

[Hellhammer]

1TB MX200 is currently $270 on Amazon, so even though RAID 0 has a negative impact on reliability I would jump on this sale. Be quick, though, there are only ~13h remaining.

 

[Elixer]

I have some very busy periods where I simply don't have time for computer trouble.

Along the lines of what Phynaz said, don't use RAID-0 if you can't afford any downtime.
Using RAID-1, will allow you to still access your stuff in the event that a drive in the array has failed, but no parity.
If you are looking for speed, and mirroring then use RAID-5, that will get you fast reads, but slow(er) writes, and has parity.
Using RAID-10, gets you the best performance for both reads & writes, but is also the most expensive--it is used for mission critical stuff.

Intel has much, much better warranty service than sammy as well, in case a unit does fail.

Crashplan is nice, but it can take a long, long time to restore your stuff, hence the need for local backups.

So, you need to decide just how much the downtime is worth it to you, in the event when something fails (and, no matter what you get, HD/SSD/whatever they will all fail at some point in time).
You could also go with local, nightly backups.

 

[bgstcola]

Is it correct that if a drive fails in a raid (with redundancy) then I will need to replace the drive before I can access my data (no matter what kind of raid)? If so, no raid will not protect against downtime unless I buy a spare SSD.

Anyone knows how the mx200 compares to the 850 pro in terms of reliability?

 

[MustISO]

If you're using something like RAID1, RAID5, RAID10 you can access the data if a drive fails. Anything other than RAID1 will require more than two drives.

 

[MongGrel]

RAID10 needs 4 drives and a dedicated hardware card though, unless it has changed.

I do have one storage array running 4 HDD's with one.

1TB MX200 is currently $270 on Amazon, so even though RAID 0 has a negative impact on reliability I would jump on this sale. Be quick, though, there are only ~13h remaining.

If your serious about going all SSD, I'd agree with grabbing a couple of those Crucials.

Unless you get a really unlucky grab on a SSD, I doubt two of those in RAID0 would fail in a very long time.

400-500 just for OS seems way overkill, but I guess you're running you other programs there too.

 

[bgstcola]

Here in Denmark 2 x MX200 is $800 and the 850 pro is $1000.

Yes I plan to run programs from the OS drive as well. And maybe a virtualbox with ubuntu. I don't know if I should put that on the OS drive or the data drive?

I guess then question is how reliable the MX200 is compared to the 850 pro, and the problem is that no one really knows. It could be that the MX200 is less than half as likely to fail than the 850 pro which would make the 2xMX200 a safer buy.

 

[Hellhammer]

RAID 0 is never more reliable than a good, single drive. There is no data indicating that the MX200 is any more reliable than the 850 PRO (or 850 EVO) is. Both are good drives and if reliability is appreciated above all, then a single drive is always a better option (unless you want to go with RAID 10/5/6).

 

[Phynaz]

Switch it around, there is no data indicating the Samsung drives are any more reliable than the Crucial drives. Considering the issues Samsung has had, it would be best to avoid them. It's not worth the risk to learn a year later that there are problems that won't be fixed.

 

[Shmee]

I would personally go the Samsung route for simplicity. Or get the 950 pro with 2x 1TB MX200s, but not in RAID.

 

[Palorim12]

You have a lot more nerve than I do if Crash Plan is your sole backup.

Re Samsung: I've seen a lot of reports about difficulty with RMA procedures if you should ever need to return a defective drive. It's up to you to decide how important that is given your worries about inconvenience and not having time. The Samsungs are good performers, but there is some chance you'll need to RMA.

The general word I've heard is that RAID doesn't add much to an SSD setup in a typical use scenario. But you may have some unusual requirements.

What kind of issues? The only complaints I've seen are either the user complaining didn't want to troubleshoot or the complainer didn't like that they received a refurbished drive in exchange.