What's the most reliable 512GB SSD for ~$300?

[Twotenths]

See below on the next post

 

[Twotenths]

Wow!

That is some speed dude.

It is a total waste of money and resources. Your main or C: drive is the only one that matters. It is the drive that determines your real throughput because all programs launch and run from your C: drive with Windows and Program Files and Program Files x86. When I build a system I can get better numbers using Super Cache on the main drive and linking all saved folders i.e, Downloads, Installation software, Pictures, Documents etc. to a slower drive. You don't need that kind of space for your operating programs. Your C: drive will dictate the speeds that you will get. I run an OCZ Vertex-4 512GB drive as my system drive with Programs File folder and x86 folder. You might not realize it but any program that installs into the x86 Programs folder will only utilize 4GB of ram maximum. Only x64 programs will use more. I'm not a big gamer but my son was and still is in a lesser degree. I can run and post my results with no Cache boost and with Cache boost and there is a big difference between the two. These are scores with only one drive and no raid array at all. The drive is configured SAS which gives it the definition of SCSI. The results are below

Standard reading no Cache 1x SSD

Reading with SuperCache 1X SSD

My internet score

 

[Mfusick]

Your using SSD cache to speed up SSD ?

 

[zCypher]

Your using SSD cache to speed up SSD ?

I think what he is talking about is a ramdisk, not using an SSD cache to speed up SSD. Look at those numbers - 5GB/s.

and that's some nice download speed on Rogers, too bad you can eat up the 250GB cap in no time!

 

[groberts101]

I think what he is talking about is a ramdisk, not using an SSD cache to speed up SSD. Look at those numbers - 5GB/s.

yeah.. it's just caching software, is all.

I've tried more than a few(I still use FancyCache for my storage arrays) and aside from uber-peen benchmarks.. they're not much different than your systems OS leveraging its available ram since the data still needs to be pulled from the source based on its native speed in the first place. Config flexibility can be better.. but more layers are not always better either.. especially for raid arrays.

 

[Mfusick]

Id rather a 3TB SSD with 3000MB speed reads

 

[Ferzerp]

A 2% failure rate on SSDs in 1 year with a 6 drive stripe gives you an 11.5% chance of array failure in a year.

3% - 17.7%
4% - 21.3%

 

[zCypher]

A 2% failure rate on SSDs in 1 year with a 6 drive stripe gives you an 11.5% chance of array failure in a year.

3% - 17.7%
4% - 21.3%

I'm not all that familiar with RAID but if one drive fails in a RAID-0 array, the entire array is toast? What is entailed in getting it all back to normal once the failed drive is replaced? Rebuild entire thing, reload windows and all apps etc? Or is it not that dire.

 

[Burner27]

No.

4 x 240GB Patriot Wildfires + LSI 9260-4i and I did it for speed and don't even use 1/4 of the capacity.

We no longer make CPUs out of relays, so hard drives need to go away too.

With modern computers capable of performing trillions of operations per second and moving 50+ GB/sec of memory bandwidth, "Please wait loading..." needs to become a thing of the past.

Does the LSI 9260-4i have compatibility issues with Z77 based motherboards still?

 

[Coup27]

I'm not all that familiar with RAID but if one drive fails in a RAID-0 array, the entire array is toast? What is entailed in getting it all back to normal once the failed drive is replaced? Rebuild entire thing, reload windows and all apps etc? Or is it not that dire.

If a single drive in a RAID0 array fails then all is lost. You will have to secure erase each SSD, add another SSD for the one that failed, re-build the array and install from scratch.

 

[Makaveli]

It is a total waste of money and resources. Your main or C: drive is the only one that matters. It is the drive that determines your real throughput because all programs launch and run from your C: drive with Windows and Program Files and Program Files x86. When I build a system I can get better numbers using Super Cache on the main drive and linking all saved folders i.e, Downloads, Installation software, Pictures, Documents etc. to a slower drive. You don't need that kind of space for your operating programs. Your C: drive will dictate the speeds that you will get. I run an OCZ Vertex-4 512GB drive as my system drive with Programs File folder and x86 folder. You might not realize it but any program that installs into the x86 Programs folder will only utilize 4GB of ram maximum. Only x64 programs will use more. I'm not a big gamer but my son was and still is in a lesser degree. I can run and post my results with no Cache boost and with Cache boost and there is a big difference between the two. These are scores with only one drive and no raid array at all. The drive is configured SAS which gives it the definition of SCSI. The results are below

Standard reading no Cache 1x SSD

Reading with SuperCache 1X SSD

My internet score

You do have point I get higher numbers from a Ram disc.

And I just upgraded my rogers internet to Docsis 3 modem.

It looks like you are on the ultimate package which is 150/10 with speed boost . I'm on extreme plus which is 45/4 and I hit 88Mbps down with speed boost.

 

[AdamK47]

A 2% failure rate on SSDs in 1 year with a 6 drive stripe gives you an 11.5% chance of array failure in a year.

3% - 17.7%
4% - 21.3%

With my usage I'm sure it's not going to be that high. The array is backed up weekly and I have a 2 year replacement plan in case a drive does fail. I'm not worried. In fact, I've been thinking of getting another two to max out the controller and give me a 4096GB array. Only have around 200GB free at the moment.

 

[Mfusick]

With my usage I'm sure it's not going to be that high. The array is backed up weekly and I have a 2 year replacement plan in case a drive does fail. I'm not worried. In fact, I've been thinking of getting another two to max out the controller and give me a 4096GB array. Only have around 200GB free at the moment.

A 4TB SSD. Your my hero!

 

[tweakboy]

If the op has the cash and wants to do this then i say go for it.

Also there is only 2 companies I trust. Crucial and Samsung. Those vectors will die a painful death at any time, even when OCZ is out of business lol

 

[Amnesia1187]

I still don't get it.

I'd be more impressed if you had built it Raid 10. Not worth the hassle of rebuilding a 3tb array for no real noticeable improvements. If nothing else, smaller separate Raid 0 arrays seem so much easier to deal with.

But what I'm far more curious about is, why not raid the system drive too? Games use a number of files off the system drive (drivers, dlls, directx, etc). Seems to me even adding just 1 more drive for your C drive could give you a good bit more performance

 

[Makaveli]

With my usage I'm sure it's not going to be that high. The array is backed up weekly and I have a 2 year replacement plan in case a drive does fail. I'm not worried. In fact, I've been thinking of getting another two to max out the controller and give me a 4096GB array. Only have around 200GB free at the moment.

I have a question adam,

how do you have time to play all these games ??

And why did you switch from the radeons to the geforces

 

[zCypher]

If a single drive in a RAID0 array fails then all is lost. You will have to secure erase each SSD, add another SSD for the one that failed, re-build the array and install from scratch.

Damn, that DOES suck supremely. Still very cool setup though.

 

[AdamK47]

Bought two more for a total of eight Vertex 4 512GB drives in RAID-0.

 

[AdamK47]

Anvil's Storage Utilities:

ATTO:

 

[Golgatha]

Anvil's Storage Utilities:

ATTO:

That is some sick storage!

 

[Zxian]

That's a little silly, and awesome. Want to be my best friend?

Just kidding. Have fun with your toys.

 

[UaVaj]

enjoying the finer things in life. :thumbsup::thumbsup:



wish pc gaming/performance was my main hobby. be a whole lot lot lot cheaper.



he who dies with the most toys wins. :biggrin:

 

[Smoblikat]

Just saw the reviews of the Vector drives. Now I'm wondering if I should hold off on getting six drives until I find some good deals on the 512GB Vectors.

What happened to your 8 vertex 4's?

 

[AdamK47]

What happened to your 8 vertex 4's?

That was posted before I got the original 6 Vertex 4s.

The 8 Vertex 4s are running fine since installing the last two yesterday.

 

[Arxinall]

I cant remember