• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which is faster?

I can tell you from experience using RAID 0 and then switching to a SSD that the SSD was faster. And I'm using SATA II not SATA III.
 
Here's the sort of performance difference you should expect in small random reads between a good SSD and a HDD :

Pw5pSwB.png


Small random read performance is what makes an SSD feel so responsive. RAID 0 won't make any difference to those numbers because the hard disk is limited by the seek time of the mechanical arm (~10ms delay retrieving each file).

Other tests with larger files will not show such a severe advantage for the SSD, but it will still perform much better.
 
Last edited:
You need literally thousands of spinning disks to get similar random access speeds to a single ssd. Not that such an array is remotely practical of course.

An ssd is considerably faster than two HDD in everything nowadays.
 
Last edited:
In sequential reads from the outermost part of the platter (first partition), you COULD get something like 160-220 MB/s from the HDDs. A single SSD is ONLY likely to be 2-3x as fast in such a case. 😛

In any other scenario the gap just gets wider, and often dramatically so. As others have noted, in random read/write there is just no comparison whatsoever because SSD seek time is functionally '0'.
 
SSD. Full speed is higher, but it's also the responsiveness that comes from reading many small files so quickly. You'll never go back to a spinner!

S
 
dstevod said:
SSD. Full speed is higher, but it's also the responsiveness that comes from reading many small files so quickly. You'll never go back to a spinner!

S
Click to expand...

unless ur running a SAS R0 array with 15K spinners on a dedicated IO card.

however i doubt the op will run that... lol..

but a R0 of possibly 4 15k drives will top an IO off a single SSD.
 
I think people here mistakenly use synthetic benchmarks as proof it's faster.
Real world performance is very different from benchmarks, you won't find a significant speed difference between an SSD and RAID HDD's.
 
pong lenis said:
I think people here mistakenly use synthetic benchmarks as proof it's faster.
Real world performance is very different from benchmarks, you won't find a significant speed difference between an SSD and RAID HDD's.
Click to expand...

No. SSDs are still better. Even in the "real world".

Unless you're running some super-lightweight OS like DOS, that is so lightweight it's not I/O bottlenecked on an HD.
 
pong lenis said:
I think people here mistakenly use synthetic benchmarks as proof it's faster.
Real world performance is very different from benchmarks, you won't find a significant speed difference between an SSD and RAID HDD's.
Click to expand...

"pong lenis" .....

obvious troll is obvious.
 
Essence_of_War said:
In sequential reads from the outermost part of the platter (first partition), you COULD get something like 160-220 MB/s from the HDDs. A single SSD is ONLY likely to be 2-3x as fast in such a case. 😛
Click to expand...

I don't know of a single drive that does better than 150MB/s in any sustained transfers. They also tend to be stuck somewhere around 0.75MB/s on random reads at 4k. So when pretty much any SSD today can sustain read at 550MB/s and random read at least 20MB/s and more like 80MB/s for a decent one it means you need at least 4 drives to exceed the sustained speed and 100+ of them to get the random access. In practice it doesn't scale that well.

The trade off today at a similar price point is storage space verses speed. At the very low end pricing there are only HDDs. That is about all there is to the market now, HDDs are done from a performance perspective and ever decreasing sizes will soon solve the size problem as well.
 
aigomorla said:
unless ur running a SAS R0 array with 15K spinners on a dedicated IO card.

however i doubt the op will run that... lol..

but a R0 of possibly 4 15k drives will top an IO off a single SSD.
Click to expand...


not by a long shot...

best case scenario, 4 15k drives get 2/3k iops

a single samsung 840 it's around 30k in the worst case scenario and around 90k iops on best case scenario :whiste:
 
BrightCandle said:
I don't know of a single drive that does better than 150MB/s in any sustained transfers. They also tend to be stuck somewhere around 0.75MB/s on random reads at 4k. So when pretty much any SSD today can sustain read at 550MB/s and random read at least 20MB/s and more like 80MB/s for a decent one it means you need at least 4 drives to exceed the sustained speed and 100+ of them to get the random access. In practice it doesn't scale that well.

The trade off today at a similar price point is storage space verses speed. At the very low end pricing there are only HDDs. That is about all there is to the market now, HDDs are done from a performance perspective and ever decreasing sizes will soon solve the size problem as well.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, last I checked nand just doesn't shrink well. Without a break through we'll be using spinners for media storage for quite a while...
 
aigomorla said:
unless ur running a SAS R0 array with 15K spinners on a dedicated IO card.

however i doubt the op will run that... lol..

but a R0 of possibly 4 15k drives will top an IO off a single SSD.
Click to expand...

Not even close. I can verify from real-world experience that a good SSD will completely blow an array of 18 15KRPM HDDs out of the water.

Also, if you are going to go the multiple HDDs route for a non-boot drive, I think the various unraid software solutions like DrivePool will actually trounce RAID 0. But still nothing beats an SSD.
 
Last edited:
glugglug said:
Not even close. I can verify from real-world experience that a good SSD will completely blow an array of 18 15KRPM HDDs out of the water.

Also, if you are going to go the multiple HDDs route for a non-boot drive, I think the various unraid software solutions like DrivePool will actually trounce RAID 0. But still nothing beats an SSD.
Click to expand...

The article I remember was that emc2 or whatever claimed it was 30, but that was years ago ..now its worse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top