What's new
By:
Filters
ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

SSD's



C

Cliotoby

  Not a 320d
Currently have a 3GBps sata 2 motherboard. Im thinking of buying a £35 raid controller which will give me sata 3 support in pcie x16, and two Corsair Force GT 60gb ssd's and putting them in raid 0.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-023-CS&groupid=701&catid=2104&subcat=910

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CC-004-SR

Does this seem like a good idea?

- Dont mind paying £35 for a controller which I will use for 2 years or so until I upgrade everything.
- Raid because Should be faster ?
- SSD beause I want speed (have a bigger external storage drive)
 
D

dk

  911 GTS Cab
Why would you want to raid 0 ssds, surely they are fast enough as it is!

Putting them in raid 0 is just doubling the chance of you losing everything on them. Use raid 1, give yourself some protection, still faster to read, but being sad it will be fast enough anyway.

Got a quote for some ssds in our 3par San this week, that'll be 10k a drive please lol.
 
Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

  Evo 5 RS
Can't you make your mind up what to spend your money on or something? LOL. Putting SSDs in RAID1 is completely pointless. Just make sure you back-up else where.

No-one tests the standards properly these days anyway RAID0 on SATA 3:

captureclu.jpg
 
C

Cliotoby

  Not a 320d
Silent_Scone said:
Can't you make your mind up what to spend your money on or something? LOL. Putting SSDs in RAID1 is completely pointless. Just make sure you back-up else where.

No-one tests the standards properly these days anyway RAID0 on SATA 3:

captureclu.jpg
Click to expand...


Not sure if thats good...., as in it seems too good to be true. Are they yours?

Decided to wait the graphics cards out a while so im upgrading other things first like the monitor and hard drives.


dk said:
Why would you want to raid 0 ssds, surely they are fast enough as it is!

Putting them in raid 0 is just doubling the chance of you losing everything on them. Use raid 1, give yourself some protection, still faster to read, but being sad it will be fast enough anyway.

Got a quote for some ssds in our 3par San this week, that'll be 10k a drive please lol.
Click to expand...

<3 3par. lol at that price. how big are they?!
 
Last edited:
Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

  Evo 5 RS
Too good to be true how exactly? Depends on the controller! It's two Vertex 3s on C600 controller.


The burst is BS as its saturating the bus
 
A

Addicted

I'd be impressed if you actually notice much difference day to day from having 1 SSD on a Sata 2 port nevermind 2 on Sata 3's, honestly try it & see first!

I've got mine on a SATA 2 port rather than my crap sata 3 ports and tbh it's perfect.
 
D

dk

  911 GTS Cab
Silent_Scone said:
Can't you make your mind up what to spend your money on or something? LOL. Putting SSDs in RAID1 is completely pointless. Just make sure you back-up else where.

No-one tests the standards properly these days anyway RAID0 on SATA 3:

captureclu.jpg
Click to expand...


Why is putting ssds in raid 1 pointless?
 
S

Steven103

  172
dk said:
Why is putting ssds in raid 1 pointless?
Click to expand...

RAID 1 is entirely aimed at data protection rather than performance, and it's not even ideal for backing drives up anyway as any errors (e.g. viruses) are mirrored straight to the backup in real time. SSDs have so far proved themselves extremely reliable, bar early toothing problems with RAID 0, and come to think of it I haven't heard of an SSD fail over time like a conventional drive would. My Intel X-25 (by all means an old outdated and maybe even catagorised as "one of the original consumer SSDs") is still going strong after years. Not to mention it'd be a rather expensive idea for SSDs as you'd have to buy two which are twice as big in the first place (RAID 0 = 20gb + 20gb = 40gb, whereas if you put two 20gb in RAID 1 you still only have 20gb useable. RAID 5 is a good balance, but you need 4 drives which is an unecessary amount for home use)

To some extent putting SSDs in RAID 0 is also pointless. The day-to-day bottleneck in terms of data storage is access time, and RAID 0 will do nigh on F-all to improve that. When it comes to transfer speeds, how big a file do you need to move before RAID 0 SSDs make a worthwhile difference over a single SSD? Purely made up numbers but a 300MB/s SSD could move an entire film (3GB) in 10 seconds, whereas RAID 0 (for all that expense and setup hassle) would save you 5 seconds. Woop-de-do. And how often do you move 3GB files? Not every 5 seconds that's for sure.

And then there's practicality of having a small boot device. Windows may be 20GB for a fresh install, but it will balloon to 40GB with updates, never mind software. A far better use of money (than RAID 1) is to invest in enough SSD capacity to store games, commonly used programs etc on.

HOWEVER...

No-one buys SSDs for the £/GB storage or the £/transfer rate. They buy them because they want something new and have bought/upgraded pretty much everything else, so why not treat yourself to insane access times and a more responsive OS?
 
Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

  Evo 5 RS
You'd be surprised how noticeable it is, especially when you're getting decent throughput. The new intel c600 makes putting then in RAID worthwhile as its a great chipset.

DK, it just defeats the object entirely right now. Maybe in a few years
 
D

dk

  911 GTS Cab
Steven103 said:
RAID 1 is entirely aimed at data protection rather than performance, and it's not even ideal for backing drives up anyway as any errors (e.g. viruses) are mirrored straight to the backup in real time. SSDs have so far proved themselves extremely reliable, bar early toothing problems with RAID 0, and come to think of it I haven't heard of an SSD fail over time like a conventional drive would. My Intel X-25 (by all means an old outdated and maybe even catagorised as "one of the original consumer SSDs") is still going strong after years. Not to mention it'd be a rather expensive idea for SSDs as you'd have to buy two which are twice as big in the first place (RAID 0 = 20gb + 20gb = 40gb, whereas if you put two 20gb in RAID 1 you still only have 20gb useable. RAID 5 is a good balance, but you need 4 drives which is an unecessary amount for home use)

To some extent putting SSDs in RAID 0 is also pointless. The day-to-day bottleneck in terms of data storage is access time, and RAID 0 will do nigh on F-all to improve that. When it comes to transfer speeds, how big a file do you need to move before RAID 0 SSDs make a worthwhile difference over a single SSD? Purely made up numbers but a 300MB/s SSD could move an entire film (3GB) in 10 seconds, whereas RAID 0 (for all that expense and setup hassle) would save you 5 seconds. Woop-de-do. And how often do you move 3GB files? Not every 5 seconds that's for sure.

And then there's practicality of having a small boot device. Windows may be 20GB for a fresh install, but it will balloon to 40GB with updates, never mind software. A far better use of money (than RAID 1) is to invest in enough SSD capacity to store games, commonly used programs etc on.

HOWEVER...

No-one buys SSDs for the £/GB storage or the £/transfer rate. They buy them because they want something new and have bought/upgraded pretty much everything else, so why not treat yourself to insane access times and a more responsive OS?
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of waffle, but it all depends on how important your data is on the boot device and whether you want it protected.

I stand by my comment.

Oh and people absolutely buy ssds for the £/transfer rate, that's the whole point of them.......

But maybe i'm thinking from a business point of view and not home user like you guys.
 
Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

  Evo 5 RS
As above the whole point of SSDS is to break past the bottleneck that using a conventional hdd has on a system. Performance is everything. And yes DK not really talking about business at all.
 
S

Steven103

  172
dk said:
Thats a lot of waffle, but it all depends on how important your data is on the boot device and whether you want it protected.

I stand by my comment.

Oh and people absolutely buy ssds for the £/transfer rate, that's the whole point of them.......

But maybe i'm thinking from a business point of view and not home user like you guys.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you've said, not disputing it but I'll try again as my points probably did get lost in waffle.

SSDs in a RAID 1 array are flawed:

1) If you're worried about data protection (from viruses, bad read/writes, system instability) then RAID 1 is fundamentally useless as the offending data just gets mirrored to both drives.
2) Traditionally RAID 1 is used to protect from physical HDD failure which were (in the scheme of things) relatively common - SSDs are in a different class as there are no moving parts. If physical failure is your motive then yes RAID 1 will save the day.
3) £/GB isn't what SSDs are about but it's still awful. It's made twice as bad with a RAID 1 array. Even most of the CS high rollers will still like to get sensible performance/£ :rasp:


I'd meet you in the middle on this one, but home users absolutely do not buy SSDs for £/transfer (though they might think they do!) - SSDs make your system much more responsive due to the virtually non existant access time which is why they're fantastic for running an OS & programs from.


I'm not saying don't get an SSD - far from it: extremely responsive, constant read/write time across the entire drive making your computer much more resistant to the "slowing down over time" plague, very reliable, very energy efficient (not that a home user running 4 memory modules, beefy graphics & a quad/hex/oct core CPU cares) and to top it all off a killer read/write speed.

It's just that there are better places to spend your money (even if you think you have EVERYTHING else) than RAID 1 if HDD failure isn't your #1 priority.


Hope that was less waffle :rasp:
 
C

Cliotoby

  Not a 320d
Ive settled for a single 120gb drive for now (crucial M4). Ill stick with RAID 2 until these Z77 board get released at which point ill buy one as I want to upgrade the processor too when the new ones get released.
 
Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

  Evo 5 RS
tbh mate raid cards in a reasonable home system are a pain in the arse as it's just one extra card in your machine. The newer intel chipsets can stretch the drives just as much, there were only problems with the earlier Marvell controllers.
 
SamP

SamP

  2.2 bar shed.
Silent_Scone said:
tbh mate raid cards in a reasonable home system are a pain in the arse as it's just one extra card in your machine. The newer intel chipsets can stretch the drives just as much, there were only problems with the earlier Marvell controllers.
Click to expand...


Cheers, I'm very much out of the loop. Need to get reading CustomPC again... :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pistachio
Comparing SSD's
Replies
12
Views
597
Coops Mk1
Coops Mk1
Gus
Cheapest graphics card that does 3 monitors
Replies
11
Views
866
Padso
P
Joe R26
PC Build Advice
Replies
36
Views
3K
Joe R26
Joe R26
W
£1300 gaming PC budget, thoughts?
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Wilkeh
W
E
Budget games PC for about about £600?
Replies
20
Views
1K
conneh
C


Top