Unlimited Storage/SSD Budget, Questions!

[Psyence]

Simplified questions...

If you wanted your OS (Windows 7) and PC Games running from SSD drives would you use 1 or 2 SSD drives to do this? ie: OS = 1 SSD Drive GAMES = 1 SSD Drive -OR- would you prefer 1 larger single SSD drive that stored both games and OS?

If you needed a large RAID array to store data and backups would you run the SSD's from the motherboard SATA controller and the RAID array on the hardware RAID controller -OR- would you get a larger quantity port controller (8 ports) and put the SSD(s) on 2 of the ports and run the remaining ports as a redundant RAID array?

Thank you!

 

[FishAk]

The thing is that an SSD really shines when working with small files- especially random. This is because of the virtually non-existent access time. For larger files, an SSD is only about twice as fast as a HDD- if that.

If you have room and ports in your box for a few more drives, I think the best compromise for speed/cost is a set of Spinpoint F3s in RAID 0, and a small (60-120Gb SSD. Put your OS/programs and maybe a couple games- if they are IO intensive and if you have room, on the SSD. Create a partition that utilizes the first 1/4 or 1/3rd of the F3s in RAID 0, and put everything else you want fast access to on that volume.

This setup will give you blazing fast speed for your OS and small files used by it, and a large amount of cheap space that is as fast or faster than an SSD for sequential files.

 

[Psyence]

--

 

[TemjinGold]

SSDs scale up in speed the larger they get. So two small unRAIDed SSDs of same arch and tech will lose out to the larger one in speed. The types of games you play also matter because certain games see zero benefit while others see immense benefits. Case in point, my brother plays MMOs and he says his SSD means he loads raids faster than anyone else on his team. (Came off a raptor and it was light years faster.)

So basically, you want to get the biggest SSD you can afford and use a spindle for everything else.

 

[FishAk]

Your MB had Intels ICH10R controller. No need for a RAID card, as that controller will do just fine with RAID 0. Put the SSD on the Intel controller, but don't make it part of the array, and it will get TRIM. You would want the page file to stay on the SSD.

The fastest part of a HDD is the outside edge. Look at an HD Tune graph of a 1Tb modern disk. You will see that the drive starts around 130-140Mb/s, and drops to around 75Mb/s as the head moves toward the center of the disk.

Using only the first 25 percent of two disks in RAID 0 would give 500Gb of- I'm guessing- 175Mb/s.

Four of the disks ($220ish) would give you 1Tb @ maybe 250-300mb/s. I don't know how well RAID 0 scales obviously. You could still use the other 75 percent of the disks with less used data- like movies or such- without compromising the speed of the array. Of course it is very important to keep another disk or two to backup this setup.

Edit: Actually, with that controller, you could just use the first 25 percent of each drive in RAID 0, and the rest of the disk space could be used as normal single disks- negating much of the risk of RAID 0. (RAID not used on 75% of disk space), or you could use RAID 10 for the inner portion of the disks... That controller is quite versatile.

 

[Psyence]

I will not run a MB Software RAID.... Im not going to rely on my MB lasting as long as I need my RAID array to last...

 

[FishAk]

So basically, you want to get the biggest SSD you can afford and use a spindle for everything else.

OK, so I just read TemjinGold's post, and I disagree somewhat:

64Gb SSD = $100ish

4x1Tb Spinpoing F3s = $260

In the above scenario, you get 1064Gb very fast storage for $360. (plus 3Tb storage for movies or other infrequently accessed data)

To come close with only a set of SSDs would cost much more.

 

[Psyence]

SSDs scale up in speed the larger they get. So two small unRAIDed SSDs of same arch and tech will lose out to the larger one in speed. The types of games you play also matter because certain games see zero benefit while others see immense benefits. Case in point, my brother plays MMOs and he says his SSD means he loads raids faster than anyone else on his team. (Came off a raptor and it was light years faster.)

So basically, you want to get the biggest SSD you can afford and use a spindle for everything else.

I play mostly FPS's... Not sure if these type of games benefit.

So if they scale the speed the larger the drive I would agree that I should stick to a single SSD...

Now would I put the SSD on the RAID controller as a single drive and raid the rest of the ports or leave the SSD on the MB controller and run the raid off the raid card?

Thanks again!

 

[FishAk]

I will not run a MB Software RAID.... Im not going to rely on my MB lasting as long as I need my RAID array to last...

In this case, you must have an inadequate backup system. This will bite you in time. RAID is not dangerous provided you have proper backups. Without proper backups, all storage is in danger. The more data that is stored, the more that is at risk.

 

[TemjinGold]

OK, so I just read TemjinGold's post, and I disagree somewhat:

64Gb SSD = $100ish

4x1Tb Spinpoing F3s = $260

In the above scenario, you get 1064Gb very fast storage for $360. (plus 3Tb storage for movies or other infrequently accessed data)

To come close with only a set of SSDs would cost much more.

You misunderstood what I said. The OP was considering between one "big" SSD versus 2 smaller ones in RAID. I'm advising the big SSD plus the spindle rather than 2 smaller SSDs plus the spindle.

 

[Psyence]

You misunderstood what I said. The OP was considering between one "big" SSD versus 2 smaller ones in RAID. I'm advising the big SSD plus the spindle rather than 2 smaller SSDs plus the spindle.

Yes, this is what I was talking about...

 

[Psyence]

In this case, you must have an inadequate backup system. This will bite you in time. RAID is not dangerous provided you have proper backups. Without proper backups, all storage is in danger. The more data that is stored, the more that is at risk.

Agreed.

I do make other backups but not nearly as many as I know I should, on the other hand I've ran RAID 5 for years and have yet to lose any data. Never (knock on wood) have had any major glitches other than failed drives which I always have a spare around.

 

[FishAk]

I would not recommend this setup without proper backups. But then I don't recommend running a computer at all without proper backups- unless all info stored is of no value. I have walked across roads for many years, and have never been hit by a car yet. (knock on wood) However, I still look both ways before I cross.

A good (not perfect) backup system could be set up with the above scenario using no extra hardware. (perfect would include off-site backups)

With 25 percent of the HDD set in a RAID 0 array, a dual set of backups could be made of the array on the portion of space that is set up to run as single disk, with almost 25 percent of the "safe" space left over. Internal backups can be set to run automatically, which makes them set and forget. Only external (not network) backups need to be manually tended to.

One or two 2Tb disks added to this setup for data that doesn't need fast access would make this a very economical, large, and very fast setup.

The trouble is, a good backup program. I haven't found one I like for free. I like very much, GoodSync, but it costs $30 after the grace period, and another $10 for each additional computer.