Raid 0 vs ssd question

[bryanW1995]

Which has faster reads, wd6400aaks in raid 0 or Kingston SSDNow V-Series SNV125-S2BD/64GB? Which one will be faster in a year? 2 years? Does anybody know if trim will become available on the kingston drive in the future?

here is the link to the kingston drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820139006

here is the wd6400aaks: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...Tpk=wd6400aaks

 

[gsaldivar]

I suppose "better" depends on whether you are looking at access time or throughput, not to mention your specific needs. I'd guess that the SSD would have superior access times but slower throughput compared to the array, again this could be "good" or "bad" depending on what you want to do with the equipment.

 

[BW86]

If I was in the market for a new HDD I'd definitely get the SSD. My friend just got one for his system; Win 7 boots in less than 10 seconds and the system just feels so much more responsive.

 

[corkyg]

Make sure the SSD you get is second generation with TRIM. Otherwise it will degrade the write speed significantly over time.

 

[milkncat]

I just bought a Kingston SSDNow 128gb yesterday. I installed it to my macbook pro. the installation was 25 minutes..which took 60 minutes with 5200rpm. Boot time was 5 seconds..which took 20 - 30 with 5200rpm. It was amazing!!! But it last for 1 hour. Then it crashed..now its not working..now waiting for replacement..

 

[Spikesoldier]

raid 0 hdds are asking for trouble unless you dont value your data, and that includes the good faith i have for wd drives today.

in terms of overall impact on system performance, a single ssd will beat any feasible number of spinning disks teamed together any day.

the only kingston drives that are worth getting are the 80gb and 160gb models which are rebadged intel x25-m drives. they make them in both the g1 and g2 so check your part numbers before buying.

the 64gb and 128gb models are based on the troubled first-gen jmicron controller which is known for stuttering and inconsistent across-the-board performance, to the point that brings it down to the level of being bested by spinning disks in a fair amount of benches. suggesting to all to stay away from those.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Both are bound to fail at around the same time, so I'd go with whatever is cheaper. Even raid 0 with like 4 drives may cost less and give you tons of room.

I would not use either setup for permanent storage though unless it's backed up like, hourly.

Now what would be cool to see is a couple SSDs in raid 0. Probably insane fast but would probably last like a year then crap out.

 

[Spikesoldier]

ssds in raid 0 are pretty much linear gains, although there are diminishing returns as the bottleneck becomes the RAID controller after the second drive for us who are on using raid on the ICHR.