Intel Matrix Raid for data + MLC SSD for system ?

[NoJones]

Hi ! Getting a new hobby has forced me to replan data storage and access. TBH I've no experience in Intel Matrix Storage or SSDs 😀 So please be patient. I've used quite a lot of time for research but I'm with inconclusive results So asking here o ye mighty computer nerds and data enthusiastics 🙂

Rig will be for : Playing virtual instruments. Recording.

Rig will also be for : Casual gaming , media storage/playing and downloading stuff :moon:

What I have: E6750+4GB+HD4850. Virtually silent cooling solution in modded Antec p180. 4 x scythe SQD1000 for 3"5 HDDs. XPhome32bit.

What I'm planning to get based on data mined : Gigabyte EP35-DS4 (TI chip for firewire) , 4 x 640 GB Samsung F1 or W.Digital GP , 32GB 2.5" SATA SSD - MLC

Planned configuration : Trancend SSD for system. HDDs Intel matrix-raided as relatively small 0 array for samples , recording and other quick access tasks + large 5 array for system and 0 array backup images , TB worth of flacs etc.

Question 1 : Any knowledge of that SSD compared to 2.5" HDD in system drive use ? All I was able to find out was that it uses slower memory than some other SSDs (MLC instead of SLC hence the lower price $65~70vat0% in europe).
Transcend recommends SLC but how big a difference is there? Boot-up time is of no interest since this rig will boot only if necessary so I can live with 4 sec slower boot 😛 Application launch times are of interest.

Question 2 : Does the Intel Matrix work as it's been advertised ? I've never used that feature. Will the CPU usage of this software RAID be a problem (peaking) ? Is there (unwanted) activity in raid5 array if no application uses it and will that slow down streaming data from/to striped performance array.

Thank You so much in advance. I really don't want to **ck this rig up. Music gear will eat up most of the money saved so no high-end solutions iyp :music:

 

[taltamir]

1. Do not use intel matrix raid, or any mobo raid controller, other then to make a RAID1 array for casual small time storage (since you are looking for terrabytes, this isn't for you). They are far too crappy and unsafe.

2. Do you really need raid 0? I doubt it.

3. Get a dedicated drive for your downloading... torrents and the like should go to one drive where they will not cripple your system by competing with other tasks. also that drive would be the first to fail.

4. read the anandtech article about SSDs http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...el/showdoc.aspx?i=3403
The gist of it is, don't get any SSD other then an intel one. In terms of performance: Intel SLC SSD > Intel MLC SSD > velociraptor > regular 3.5inch platter drives > regular SLC SSD > 2.5 inch platter drive > regular MLC SSD.
Your transcends are likely either the regular SLC or regular MLC, making them the worst possible choice. they will CRIPPLE your system.

5. For your 5 drive array I recommend you build a fileserver... for maximum data protection consider raid z2 or raidz using zfs with opensolaris.
read some about ZFS: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/

For the OS to get for ZFS use open solaris (osol), use latest build, aka the 2008-11 beta, not the may of 08 one.
The version is found on http://genunix.org/
use this guide for setting up windows access: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/in...e_Solaris_CIFS_Service

If you are not willing to learn how to use solaris. Use something like freenas or other simple open source nas os.

So my suggested configuration:
Fileserver: opensolaris and 5 x 1.5 drive ZFS array. or freenas.
get a mobo with onboard video and gigabit lan, and a cheap cpu and ram. And use 5x1.5TB drives in raid 5 or 6. (z1 or z2 with zfs respectively)

Personal computer:
1. velociraptor OS drive.
2. some regular 640GB drive for downloading scratch (aka, the directory for the temp and final files for torrents and other downloads. also use it for capturing video instead of a raid0 array.
NO RAID!

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: taltamir

In terms of performance: regular SLC SSD > Intel MLC SSD > velociraptor > 7,200rpm drives > 5,400rpm drives > 4,600rpm drives > regular MLC SSD.

Fixed.
Intel MLC is good for benchmarks but has the similar issues as all MLCs (they are lessened by the cache memory). Pretty much every SLC is better. The real world performance of Intel SLC SSDs is still an unknown.

 

[taltamir]

it was fixed incorrectly. The most significant thing in an SSD right now is the controller. In regular SLC SSD you have a samsung controller that is ok, it is not terrible like the J-micron one... but it is not nearly as good as the intel one.

the anand review is a very good in depth analysis of SSD technology.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: taltamir
it was fixed incorrectly. The most significant thing in an SSD right now is the controller. In regular SLC SSD you have a samsung controller that is ok, it is not terrible like the J-micron one... but it is not nearly as good as the intel one.

the anand review is a very good in depth analysis of SSD technology.

It was fixed correctly.
How about take your head out of your ... benchmarks and listen to people actually using them.

REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE the SLC drives still kick the intel MLC's butt.
Read the AT article, it explains why MLC is slower than SLC. Intel has a better controller, I agree with that, but the MLC technology is sooo bad that it can only do so much.
Intel's drive uses caching to hide this inefficiency but it doesn't do it very well in REAL WORLD usage.

Here is a bunch of people who have actually used SSDs:
http://forum.notebookreview.co...ad.php?t=208242&page=1

(PS: I have tried MLC SSDs ... and returned them. The technology is not usable in 90% of REAL WORLD usage scenarios.)

 

[Glenn]

I believe I have my head out of my %%%, and I have tried MLC SSD in single drive as well as Raid using the Intel Storage Matrix. I can't speak for jmicron or samsung controllers but the Intel MLC X25-M blows me away with the performance increase whether it's as a single drive or in raid as I currently have them! My benchmarks back up what I already knew after the first boot. Benchmarks mean nothing if you don't gain a real world benefit! It made more of a difference in performance on my system than anything and I mean ANYTHING, I have ever experienced on a PC by a long country mile.

Look at my registration date for this site and you will see I have been around performance computing for quite some time. Actually, I've been a member of these forums since the mid 90s and Anand's old geocities days, overclocking the original pentium processors. Nothing in all those years, had an effect on everyday use like a single Intel SSD did!

So, there you have it! Someone who is actually using it should you choose to listen!

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: taltamir
it was fixed incorrectly. The most significant thing in an SSD right now is the controller. In regular SLC SSD you have a samsung controller that is ok, it is not terrible like the J-micron one... but it is not nearly as good as the intel one.

the anand review is a very good in depth analysis of SSD technology.

It was fixed correctly.
How about take your head out of your ... benchmarks and listen to people actually using them.

REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE the SLC drives still kick the intel MLC's butt.
Read the AT article, it explains why MLC is slower than SLC. Intel has a better controller, I agree with that, but the MLC technology is sooo bad that it can only do so much.
Intel's drive uses caching to hide this inefficiency but it doesn't do it very well in REAL WORLD usage.

Here is a bunch of people who have actually used SSDs:
http://forum.notebookreview.co...ad.php?t=208242&page=1

(PS: I have tried MLC SSDs ... and returned them. The technology is not usable in 90% of REAL WORLD usage scenarios.)

 

[coolVariable]

SLC > MLC

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: Glenn
. . . and I have tried MLC SSD

Thank you for making my point.

Originally posted by: Glenn
... I've been a member of these forums since the mid 90s and Anand's old geocities days ...

And here is a gold star for you.
I think the fact that I was tweaking 386 CPUs and adding external cache does not factor into any additional knowledge about SSDs.

 

[Glenn]

My point was about this statement-

Intel's drive uses caching to hide this inefficiency but it doesn't do it very well in REAL WORLD usage.

I am describing real world usage and I stand by what I said. And, the reason of describing my background was to point out that I have tried alot of things over the years and this remains far and away the single biggest improvement I've ever witnessed!

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: Glenn
. . . and I have tried MLC SSD

Thank you for making my point.

Originally posted by: Glenn
... I've been a member of these forums since the mid 90s and Anand's old geocities days ...

And here is a gold star for you.
I think the fact that I was tweaking 386 CPUs and adding external cache does not factor into any additional knowledge about SSDs.

 

[coolVariable]

So you are confirming my point?

SLC SSDs > intel MLC SSD > normal HDDs > cheap MLC SSDs (OCZ, G.Skill, Patriot ...)