New System Build SSD/HDD architecture advice

[Iceking007]

Hello I will try to keep this short; I am building a new system for myself....... 'Finally!!!!!' designed around Digital Arts (CS5 Master Collection suite along with AutoCAD and some others ect...)

Quick rundown of the system:

i7 3060X
8x4G Kingston 1600
SLI Qudro 4000's
2x Kingston 120Gb SSD's
2x Seagate Baracuda 1TB HDD's
W7 Pro 64bit


PROLOGUE:

The problem I'm having is actually deciding how I want to set up my drives currently on my laptop I'm running an internal HDD split into three partitions with three multiboot OS's and my external drives run everything else 90% of my apps get installed externally; however I've has minor problems with some programs not running to the proper ability due to the small C: drive space and have been told I need at least 20-40 Gigs of free space on the C: which my current system can't afford. I've fallowed tweakhounds advice for XP and he says 30Gb's is enough but it doesn't seem to be as I'm running slightly more than that.

GET TO THE PONT:

Ok so I bought two 120 GB SSD's figuring these would be big enought I didn't want to go with anything smaller than 60 just incase all these programs and W7 needed more room; so I was thinking around 80GB but then I figured on an SSD size won't matter better to have more than less and I could afford two 120's so that's what I bought.

I've been thinking and changing my mind on architecture between my four drives and my system........ RAID...... Backup drive...... Partition........ File storage....... OS and boot files..... ect back and forth I've come to this:

I'm thinking no Raid

-SSD 1 use for OS and C: drive one partition
-SSD 2 use for apps and my docs and current usage saving one partition
-HDD 1 use for History saves or completed projects; long projects saving; or huge files; and disk images; and burning temp files ect one partition
-HDD 2 additional saving location or backups... but I'm hoping to get a 2 or 3TB external 3.0 for backups ect. one partition

Do partitions slow down an HDD?? I'm sure they won't slow down an SSD but I don't think there is a point on an SSD is there??

I like RAID don't get me wrong....... but I'm thinking if I backup regularly I don't really need it and it will save me the NAND read/writes

I'm worried about using an SSD for daily ussage even with the added speed although I've been doing lots of research and my drives should still last five years I hope.

Well how would you set up this system? I will hopefully be adding some drives in the future obviously especially if they fill up but for now I'm just working with the 4 of them plus 7200 RPM is still fairly quick so even if I use those on my system it's better than no drives at all

Thank you for your time.

sorry this is so long
P.S.
also wondering if you can RAID between SSD and HDD and if sizes of disks have to be the same? ie can I Raid 1/0 between 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD

 

[beginner99]

Raiding a HDD with an ssd is 100% pointless regardless if it is possible. The ssd alone would be faster.

IMHO 1 120 GB ssd is enough unless you have tons of games (or other large apps) and want to have them on an ssd (IHMO a waste of money).

Documents on a ssd? same. waste of money.

Put the OS and the most used apps (browser, ...) on it and keep at least 20% of the space free.
The big advantage of SSDs are random reads and writes (several magnitudes faster than HDDs) and that is what the OS does often and why computers with hdds can get unresponsive at times.

IMHO best approach is 1 SSD and as many "green drives" for storage as you need. I run all my games from green drives.

 

[Cerb]

1. RAID will not save you from needing backups. it will only save you from downtime due to physical drive failure. RAID 0 is pointless with an SSD, generally.

2. Windows 7 needs 20-30GB with a default install. Getting much lower than 20GB, even w/ hibernate turned off, is trying.

3. You should have enough SATAs to just use another drive for another OS, instead of doing your own partitioning. Install and set up Windows first, then add whatever else, then change boot order (assuming Linux, good desktop distros will discover Windows, and set GRUB up for it).

 

[Iceking007]

I posted a similar question on the Adobe site and one guy said he would use a 256 and 120 is too small, so should I just use one 256 for my OS to default install and move my docs to an HDD and install all my apps on the 256?

What I'm worried about with the HDD's is they will create a bottleneck; eg if I save a new movie and all it's files that I'm editing to my HDD won't my editing go slow even though my program is on the SSD just because the files are on a spinner.

Plus wouldn't it take longer to save ect.

Maybe Adobe takes the saved file data and moves it to the SSD while I'm working with it but just stores all the data on the HDD?

Thank you for the advice it is good so far.

 

[beginner99]

I posted a similar question on the Adobe site and one guy said he would use a 256 and 120 is too small, so should I just use one 256 for my OS to default install and move my docs to an HDD and install all my apps on the 256?

Sorry OP, didn't read your post clearly enough.

If you plan to do HD video editing and have these projects on the ssd, then yes a 120 is probably too small depending on the length of the video.

So or video editing ignore my previous post.

 

[groberts101]

OK.. I'll chime in here once and then leave for the sake of not dealing with the typical fallout from some of my opinions. All I can say to be true.. is that seeing really is believing.

In this particular usage environment.. capacity has not as much to do with the ability to store the data on the OS volume as it does for the ability of the write loads PER work session(and that Adobe forum member has you on the right track there to be sure). Many get this completely wrong and assume that trim and scratching to HDD(wrong way to go from a speed standpoint, by the way) will save them from the negatives. Unfortunately, not as much as many would think it will at the end of the days work session.

I don't do cad work but my system is one of the fastest you'll see for doing web/gfx/vid work(I too use Adobe Master Suite) because I've tested many combo's and stuck with the very best one's from a speed/workflow standpoint. But just like the old hotrod saying goes.. "speed costs.. how fast do you want to go?". Especially with todays HDD pricing and there are obviously points of diminishing returns.

Many also get caught up on fast OS volumes without the understanding of the required storage speeds needed to back it up/match it. We can only R/W to/from that storage as fast as the current storage bottleneck's will allow. Fast SSD's are only fast.. when the data is natively stored ON the SSD(or preferably the SSD array).

Main ingredients needed for a fast workstation(aside from the obvious need for 4-6 core CPU's and copious amounts of fast ram.

AT LEAST.. 2x faster 6G SSD's(or 4(or more) fast 3G SSD's) in R0.

1 raidcard with AT LEAST 4x HDD in R0(6-8 is even better) to better match the OS volumes potential speeds during R/W operations between the OS and storage volumes. You'll get that typical initial lag from the HDD arrays latency.. and then.. BAM!.. the data flies across volumes faster than most can imagine. My typical advice to those who don't quite "get it" would be to set up a ramdisk and then R/W from/to the SSD(or SSD array) and see what they have left on the table. Most are surprised.

A couple of larger single HDD's(external or otherwise) for data redundancy due to the previously mentioned R0 implementation. Personally?.. I back up my R0's with more R0's. BUT.. I am known to be "extreme" and overkill would be a huge understatement when describing my usage of most things with watts, MB's, or horsepower. lol

Optional:.. would be to use Fancycache or superspeed caching software for speeding up redundantly accessed data and reducing the amount of data scratched to the SSD array. Ramdisks are also an excellent way to do the same thing as well. This will reduce writes to the SSD array not for the sake of lifespan but moreso to reduce the amount of written blocks and the required recovery from said fresh block consumption per worksession.

Alternatively.. you could use R0 for SSD based OS volume matched with the same R0 storage array and then back it all up with HDD.

Personally?.. my next evolutionary step will be to retire my 6 SSD R0 to another raidcard(I already use 2 cards in this system and will eventually get a third) as dedicated scratch/temp volume duty. Then I'll have SSD raid for an OS(probably 4x 6G SSD).. + 6-8x SSD raid for a temp/scratch volume.. + 8x HDD array for main storage.. + 8x HDD for redundant storage.. + boo koo ram(64 gigs) for dedicated caching. Expensive?.. yes. Required for everyone's needs?.. certainly not. Fast for an editing workstation?.. you bet yer ass it will be! :thumbsup:

 

[Iceking007]

Thank you so much that is exactly what I was looking for; for some reason I never thought of R0 for the HDD's lol looks like I'm getting a third party raid controller and three more hard drives.

 

[groberts101]

no prob. Take a look at the Highpoint 2720 since that's about the best bang for the buck on the market right now. I have one, and though I normally don't recommend Highpoints?.. it has been rock solid so far. You'll easily see 1 gig R/W with 8 x HDD.

And if you decide to go for it?.. then buy the SGL(card only) and buy the necessary sas to sata fanouts required(1 per each 4 drives used) to run the HDD's since the kits come with sas to sas only. Just remember to backup any important data, is all.

 

[kbp]

Hey "G" ..... I just love all of the bashing of RAID0 from most that DO NOT use it.
Guess they have no idea what it does for 4k w/r's and file transfers.

 

[Iceking007]

Hi groberts I was looking at this 3WARE SAS 9750-8i 8-Port 6GB/s PCI-E SATA+SAS RAID Controller Card it will cost me $649.99 only problem is all ports are internal I'd like to do 4 inside and 4 outside in a R01 but the card also only does R10 and some others ofcourse; why is it ao hard to find a R01? I think it's far superior to R10 as the data is now devided physically rather than in one location; if there where a fire flood or over heating those drives and data would be lost; I suppose you will just say just just have to trick the controller and move some drives around but that is extra work and why would R01 exist if you couldn't use it. Plus wouldn't stripping then cloning be faster than cloning and then stripping? I don't know, thank you for the advice.

 

[Cerb]

Hey "G" ..... I just love all of the bashing of RAID0 from most that DO NOT use it.
Guess they have no idea what it does for 4k w/r's and file transfers.

RAID 0 bashing is for gamers and the like, that will get little to no benefit, but make pages-long threads about migrating it from one mobo chipset to another, later on.

 

[groberts101]

Hi groberts I was looking at this 3WARE SAS 9750-8i 8-Port 6GB/s PCI-E SATA+SAS RAID Controller Card it will cost me $649.99 only problem is all ports are internal I'd like to do 4 inside and 4 outside in a R01 but the card also only does R10 and some others ofcourse; why is it ao hard to find a R01? I think it's far superior to R10 as the data is now devided physically rather than in one location; if there where a fire flood or over heating those drives and data would be lost; I suppose you will just say just just have to trick the controller and move some drives around but that is extra work and why would R01 exist if you couldn't use it. Plus wouldn't stripping then cloning be faster than cloning and then stripping? I don't know, thank you for the advice.

Why would you want R 0+1 these days? R 0+1 is older tech and I'm guessing that cards in this particular price range will steer you away from 0+1 simply for the fact that data integrity is not maintained nearly as well as it would be in 1+0.

In either case (0+1 or 1+0), the loss of a single drive does not result in failure of the RAID system.The difference comes in the chance that the loss of a second drive from the system will result in the failure of the whole system. In RAID 0+1, you have to lose one drive from each disk set to result in the failure of the whole system. In RAID 1+0, you have to lose all drives in a mirror.

Then would come the concern for degraded state performance and RAID 1+0 configuration will tend to show similar, but less dramatic, changes in performance when in a degraded mode than RAID 0+1.

You may want to reconsider the mode and hardware choice. Here's another one that may be a good dandidate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816118131

 

[groberts101]

RAID 0 bashing is for gamers and the like, that will get little to no benefit, but make pages-long threads about migrating it from one mobo chipset to another, later on.

amen brother. These were often the same people who claimed that there was no real world gain to be had when we posted of HDD/SSD raid's performance gain in the past. In reality.. it may have been some form of denial due to benchmark envy by some of the "closet peeners" out there. Although, most real power users know that it goes far beyond benchmarking status and seeing really is believing.

Ironically, these same folks now swear that their 6G SSD's are faster than anything they've ever owned. Which is just beyond silly when we consider that raided 3G SSD is nearly the same as single 6G SSD these days.

I usually just figure that.. what they don't know?.. won't hurt us.