RAID 0 and SSD

All things storage here: hard drives, DVD RW drives, little wicker baskets.

Moderators: morphine, Steel

RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:09 pm

A while ago there was an enticing article on RAID 0 and SSD's since then tech report hasn't really paid much attention to that but I was considering to do a quad raid with the SSD drives floating around 1 dollar per gigabyte.

I would want to array either 4-250 gb drives or 2-500 gb drives in raid 0 for purposed of achieving a core 1 tb system drive I can easily backup and mirror for supper backup of vital info while achieving great system performance. I have a 1090T x6 processor @ 3.8ghz and realize without improving my storage speed I won't see improvement in practical anything by bumping to a better processor at the moment. I've never done raid and was wondering if you guys had any advice as to where to start my research or as to any hardware you'd recommend.

If I have the completely wrong idea running SSD's in raid 0 due to some quirk that they have please notify me. I know trim is important but don't understand really what it is and how raid might affect it.

I'm trying to keep the total arrangement under 1 grand. (already have 3, terabyte HDDs for making images of the array)

The reason I want one system drive is to easily image the drive and programs to protect from having loss of licenses. Jumping through hoops to get back my last seat of photoshop was something I don't care to repeat after my last HDD failure, let alone the instal limitations with certain games and workstation apps.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:25 pm

i've been running a RAID0 intel 320 120GB for months now. ran into problems with one of the SATA cables of all things, but the array itself remained fine. the lack of TRIM hasn't been an issue so far.
moriz
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:35 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:46 pm

moriz wrote:i've been running a RAID0 intel 320 120GB for months now. ran into problems with one of the SATA cables of all things, but the array itself remained fine. the lack of TRIM hasn't been an issue so far.


Nice. Have you noticed any difference in performance compared to non-RAID SSD?
JdL
286DX > Pentium Pro 200 > Athlon 1000 @ 1.4 GHz > Athlon 64 2.2 GHz > Athlon XP 3200+ > Core 2 Duo 3300 @ 4.0 GHz > Core 2 Quad 6600 G0 @ 3.2 > Core i7 3770 @ stock
JdL
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 11:45 am
Location: United States of America

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:48 pm

Hmm, a 1TB, quad-SSD RAID-0 Photoshop box sounds interesting! I can see how continual Photoshop image processing/transferring could benefit from quick storage solutions. RAID is good for FREQUENT storage accesses, but not good for infrequent level loads and web browsing (my opinion). I recently looked at RAID-ing two SSDs, and decided my typical computer usage would not warrant the extra cost/complexity of RAID, so I went with a single Corsair Force GT 120GB, and it's PLENTY fast for the things I do (Outlook, Excel, Word, web browsing, games a few times a week, etc.). Again, Photoshop is probably in the category of applications that would benefit significantly from an SSD due to how much data is being passed.

Is the quad setup truly necessary, or can you get by with just two drives? Have you used just a single SSD for your purposes yet (if not, you might be surprised at wicked performance)? Those are more rhetorical questions than requiring forum feedback.

One thing I found out about RAIDing SSDs during my research about a month ago is that say you need to update the firmware on your SSDs, well you have to break the array to update each drive individually (someone correct me if I'm wrong). This would required ANOTHER drive sitting around with an OS ready to process firmware updates. Although, with the latest Corsair firmware I'm using, I've had not one problems at all. So firmware updates may not be required with drives running more recent firmware - the issue might not even come up.


Not trying to make you doubt your approach, just sharing. Hope it goes well for. Let us know about Photoshop time/performance improvements for the image processing.
Azza Helios||Hyper Type-R 580W||ASUS M4A79XTD||Phenom II X4 955||ZALMAN CNPS9900MAX-B||4GB G.SKILL DDR3 1600||Corsair Force GT 120GB||2x WD 1TB Caviar Black||HT Omega Striker 7.1||PowerColor HD4870 512MB||Win7 Pro x64

3.48GHz 30/52C||1640MHz 8-8-8-24 2T
paulsz28
Gerbil
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:52 pm

moriz wrote:i've been running a RAID0 intel 320 120GB for months now. ran into problems with one of the SATA cables of all things, but the array itself remained fine. the lack of TRIM hasn't been an issue so far.


Thanks. This is encouraging.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:56 pm

paulsz28 wrote:Hmm, a 1TB, quad-SSD RAID-0 Photoshop box sounds interesting! I can see how continual Photoshop image processing/transferring could benefit from quick storage solutions. RAID is good for FREQUENT storage accesses, but not good for infrequent level loads and web browsing (my opinion). I recently looked at RAID-ing two SSDs, and decided my typical computer usage would not warrant the extra cost/complexity of RAID, so I went with a single Corsair Force GT 120GB, and it's PLENTY fast for the things I do (Outlook, Excel, Word, web browsing, games a few times a week, etc.). Again, Photoshop is probably in the category of applications that would benefit significantly from an SSD due to how much data is being passed.

Is the quad setup truly necessary, or can you get by with just two drives? Have you used just a single SSD for your purposes yet (if not, you might be surprised at wicked performance)? Those are more rhetorical questions than requiring forum feedback.

One thing I found out about RAIDing SSDs during my research about a month ago is that say you need to update the firmware on your SSDs, well you have to break the array to update each drive individually (someone correct me if I'm wrong). This would required ANOTHER drive sitting around with an OS ready to process firmware updates. Although, with the latest Corsair firmware I'm using, I've had not one problems at all. So firmware updates may not be required with drives running more recent firmware - the issue might not even come up.


Not trying to make you doubt your approach, just sharing. Hope it goes well for. Let us know about Photoshop time/performance improvements for the image processing.


The raid is not for preformance really but rather to more cheaply achieve my goal of a 1 TB system drive with the speed of a SSD. The reason I want a single system drive is so I can image my programs and config totalling currently a little over 500 gb and protect seats of things so I don't have to spend weeks fishing for them back from the respective adobe's of the world in case of a failure as I have in the past. I currently run a 1 tb caviar black with a caviar green as my image drive. My goal is to replace the caviar with a 1 tb array. As for the number of drives if you know of a fast and affordable 1 Tb SSD that is reliable I'm all ears, otherwise I don't expect any over 500 gb to appear and therefore making raid a requirement of my aspirations at my price.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:22 pm

JdL wrote:
moriz wrote:i've been running a RAID0 intel 320 120GB for months now. ran into problems with one of the SATA cables of all things, but the array itself remained fine. the lack of TRIM hasn't been an issue so far.


Nice. Have you noticed any difference in performance compared to non-RAID SSD?


in actual use? not really. despite some solid gains in sequential and high queue depth transfers, 4K random read and write remained more or less the same at 18/40ish MB/s. it's expected too, since i'll need a 2k stripe size to actual see any gains in 4K transfer speeds, while intel's onboard RAID controller only allows for 4K minimum.

i did this primarily because i happen to have two such SSDs, and having them running as separate drives seemed like a waste of resources.

also on a related note, if you want to go ahead with this, make frequent backups. i use acronis 2011 to make daily incremental backups.
moriz
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:35 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:02 pm

moriz wrote:also on a related note, if you want to go ahead with this, make frequent backups. i use acronis 2011 to make daily incremental backups.



Thanks for the recommendation I'll check it out. This has been a goal of mine since I rebuilt my tower last christmas. I don't know when exactly I'll gather the funds but I expect it to be in the next 6 months.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:35 pm

I think the pertinent points have already been covered, but the issues with SSDs in RAID 0 are:

1)Lack of TRIM support. Don't really know if this is an issue. But if it is, it will likely crop up after you have had the array for a couple of years or longer.

2)Minimal performance benefit over a single larger SSD. The SATA controller and/or the OS or programs normally used just can't make use of the extra bandwidth. Additionally, larger SSDs generally have faster read speeds, negating the increase in read speed performance that is the whole point of RAID 0 (In other words, often a 512GB SSD can be thought of as a RAID 0 version of two 256GB SSDs).

3)Traditional problems in the event of physical disk or RAID array failure with RAID 0.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:51 pm

It pretty much comes down to waiting for a decent drive of 256 gb in size or larger hitting just bellow the dollar per gigabyte mark then I grab 4 and a controller and bam Doesn't look like that will happen before christmas. Was looking over newegg and the cost of going with larger SSDs will be double or triple this solution. as we speak 256 gb SSDs float around 300-400 dollars and 500 gb SSDs float closer to 700-900. and the exponential pricing continues from there with a 1 tb costing approximately 3,500 dollars.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:17 pm

cynan wrote:I think the pertinent points have already been covered, but the issues with SSDs in RAID 0 are:

1)Lack of TRIM support. Don't really know if this is an issue. But if it is, it will likely crop up after you have had the array for a couple of years or longer.

2)Minimal performance benefit over a single larger SSD. The SATA controller and/or the OS or programs normally used just can't make use of the extra bandwidth. Additionally, larger SSDs generally have faster read speeds, negating the increase in read speed performance that is the whole point of RAID 0 (In other words, often a 512GB SSD can be thought of as a RAID 0 version of two 256GB SSDs).

3)Traditional problems in the event of physical disk or RAID array failure with RAID 0.



Yea, then I heard Intel in some article a few weeks back that they had resolved or found a solution to the RAID problem (making TRIM work). Don't know the status of that tho.

FYI, my son has been running a RAID 0 on you x25 gen 2 (80 gig each) for over a year now without an issue. I have not bothered with firmware updates or anything. No performance degradation yet. I have a 256 gig SSD (SATA II) on my main machine and it is faster than my son's. But then my machine's components are newer, so I can't really verify it.

Only question is, do you really need 1 TB as a main drive. I have all my apps and games on the main drive and have not gone more than 3/4 full.

Ditto to frequent backups including system restore. Anything can and will happen.
A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective.
Edward Teller
SomeOtherGeek
Gerbil First Class
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:49 pm
Location: Outside somewhere

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:50 pm

Basically, no striped RAID configuration's small randoms are going to scale since they're below the stripe size. So if you're dragging copying large sequentials to the drive you could do so very quickly.

But larger randoms and sequentials are important too. If you really need the space I understand, but overprovision the drives by a fair amount to keep speed up. You don't want to have to break apart the array, secure erase, and then clone your installation back to the 4 raided drives too often do you?
Compton
Gerbil
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:13 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:34 pm

intel claims that their next RST driver will enable TRIM for RAIDed SSDs, so that should solve a lot of problems. however, OP's system is an AMD, most of them don't have Intel's Matrix RAID, not to mention access to intel RST drivers. with that said, most modern drives have good enough garbage collection that TRIM isn't needed that much. the intel 320 series happens to have very good GC, so most of them time, it doesn't particularly need TRIM anyway.

also, larger SSDs often don't have faster read speed, but do have faster write. in every case though, 2x120GB will end up being almost twice as fast as 1x240. for instance, 2x crucial m4 128GB can hit 1GB/s sequential read.
moriz
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:35 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:01 pm

Compton wrote:Basically, no striped RAID configuration's small randoms are going to scale since they're below the stripe size. So if you're dragging copying large sequentials to the drive you could do so very quickly.

Except that small random reads below the stripe size can still be twice as fast since there are two drives servicing requests rather than one...
Z68XP-UD4 | 2700K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB | 770 | PCP&C Silencer 950 | XSPC RX360 | Heatkiller R3 | D5 + RP-452X2 | HAF 932 | 1 TB WD Black w/ SRT
Waco
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:30 pm

TheWacoKid wrote:
Compton wrote:Basically, no striped RAID configuration's small randoms are going to scale since they're below the stripe size. So if you're dragging copying large sequentials to the drive you could do so very quickly.

Except that small random reads below the stripe size can still be twice as fast since there are two drives servicing requests rather than one...


I really don't think that's true, but even if it is, how would two drives service one 4K file that's only on one drive? Or if the 4K file was on both drives, how does it read from both any faster than one?
Compton
Gerbil
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:13 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:03 pm

for RAID0 to have any benefit, the stripe size needs to be smaller than the size of the data. for intel's matrix RAID, the smallest stripe size is 4K, which means that it doesn't do anything for 4K transfers. for anything bigger, there's a theoretical double in performance with two identical drives, which i find to be generally true. my RAID0 intel 320 120GB can achieve 460/220 sequentials, which is pretty close to double the expected speed of each drive.
moriz
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:35 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:42 pm

I just remember the quad raid0 article on here basically said look out this is fast.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:48 pm

moriz wrote:for RAID0 to have any benefit, the stripe size needs to be smaller than the size of the data. for intel's matrix RAID, the smallest stripe size is 4K, which means that it doesn't do anything for 4K transfers. for anything bigger, there's a theoretical double in performance with two identical drives, which i find to be generally true. my RAID0 intel 320 120GB can achieve 460/220 sequentials, which is pretty close to double the expected speed of each drive.


Yes, and anything below the stripe size gets handled off of one drive. My Intel's or Indilinxes in RAID 0 are pretty good, and files above the stripe size just about get doubled. But that doesn't make two drives "twice as fast" in terms of real performance.

Two Intel X25-M 80GB drives in RAID 0 have max sequentials in the 520/160 read/write neighborhood. And add in the 4K randoms for one drive 24/60 MBs read/write.

That makes two X25-M 80s equivalent in speed to one 6gbps Samsung 830 64GB drive (520 read 160 writes, 20/60 4K randoms), at least in numbers. Striping SSDs is cool, but saying that you have two drives to fulfill sub-stripe size requests is just not true. You'll get a boost in speed, but it won't be in small files/small random performance, and you won't feel like your storage system is twice as fast. That said, it's still awesome, but be realistic about the results.

Two Patriot WildFire/Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 120s in RAID would top out at 1000MBs reads and 500MBs writes (with incompressible data). Small randoms for one drive are pretty good, and the speed is impressive. But it's not like Windows is going to start twice as fast or Skyrim load levels twice as fast.
Compton
Gerbil
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:13 am

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:31 pm

Compton wrote:
moriz wrote:for RAID0 to have any benefit, the stripe size needs to be smaller than the size of the data. for intel's matrix RAID, the smallest stripe size is 4K, which means that it doesn't do anything for 4K transfers. for anything bigger, there's a theoretical double in performance with two identical drives, which i find to be generally true. my RAID0 intel 320 120GB can achieve 460/220 sequentials, which is pretty close to double the expected speed of each drive.


Yes, and anything below the stripe size gets handled off of one drive. My Intel's or Indilinxes in RAID 0 are pretty good, and files above the stripe size just about get doubled. But that doesn't make two drives "twice as fast" in terms of real performance.

Two Intel X25-M 80GB drives in RAID 0 have max sequentials in the 520/160 read/write neighborhood. And add in the 4K randoms for one drive 24/60 MBs read/write.

That makes two X25-M 80s equivalent in speed to one 6gbps Samsung 830 64GB drive (520 read 160 writes, 20/60 4K randoms), at least in numbers. Striping SSDs is cool, but saying that you have two drives to fulfill sub-stripe size requests is just not true. You'll get a boost in speed, but it won't be in small files/small random performance, and you won't feel like your storage system is twice as fast. That said, it's still awesome, but be realistic about the results.

Two Patriot WildFire/Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 120s in RAID would top out at 1000MBs reads and 500MBs writes (with incompressible data). Small randoms for one drive are pretty good, and the speed is impressive. But it's not like Windows is going to start twice as fast or Skyrim load levels twice as fast.


OK, I'd be happy if 4 drives is Raid 0 preformed similarly to a single SSD since that would already be such a huge performance gain.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:33 pm

Speaking of the Samsung 830, BHPhotoVideo has a pre-order sale for the 512GB version for $699. Seems like a good deal for anyone that really needs a system disk that large.

I'm sort of tempted to get one myself, even though I'd likely be fine with the 256GB drive.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:30 am

moriz wrote:intel claims that their next RST driver will enable TRIM for RAIDed SSDs, so that should solve a lot of problems. however, OP's system is an AMD, most of them don't have Intel's Matrix RAID, not to mention access to intel RST drivers. with that said, most modern drives have good enough garbage collection that TRIM isn't needed that much. the intel 320 series happens to have very good GC, so most of them time, it doesn't particularly need TRIM anyway.

also, larger SSDs often don't have faster read speed, but do have faster write. in every case though, 2x120GB will end up being almost twice as fast as 1x240. for instance, 2x crucial m4 128GB can hit 1GB/s sequential read.



So as I'm changing jobs and some investments are maturing I'd like to finally start laying the groundwork for this to happen. What would I need for Trim to function in RAID0??? What SSDs would you all recommend for such a venture? I'm looking to do a 1 or 2 gb array and then back it up on a 2 gb caviar green drive. I'd be doing this in about 3 months or 4 months time. Thanks for all the info up to this point.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:17 am

kamikaziechameleon wrote:So as I'm changing jobs and some investments are maturing I'd like to finally start laying the groundwork for this to happen. What would I need for Trim to function in RAID0??? What SSDs would you all recommend for such a venture? I'm looking to do a 1 or 2 gb array and then back it up on a 2 gb caviar green drive. I'd be doing this in about 3 months or 4 months time. Thanks for all the info up to this point.

Right now, AFAIK, you need Windows 8 and an Intel controller. Supposedly, the latest round of Intel RST drivers support TRIM in RAID, but only on that operating system. I believe that was in the official announcement. However, the web is full of threads about hacks and BIOS updates to make it work in "regular" situations but it's confusing at best. Just go google "Intel RST SSD RAID TRIM".ouble.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9952
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:12 am

I don't see the point. Real-world performance isn't going to be noticably better in most cases, the total cost is going to be about the same as a single larger SSD, you've got the (potential) TRIM issue, and the odds of data loss are much higher. Why bother?
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37630
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am

First of all, TRIM function with some of the newer SSD controllers isn't exactly mandatory as they feature pretty aggressive garbage collection. Worst case scenario, if you do notice performance degradation, it's not that much of an issue to simply secure erase the drives (reset all the sectors to "0"), which basically resets performance. Particularly if you are making regular image backups of your RAID array anyway (recommended). I've done this myself with the onbaord X79 Intel storage controller using a Linux bootable version of Parted Magic (free) and Windows 7 backup image with a pair of Corsair Performance Pros in RAID 0 and it takes about half an hour. The process goes something like:

1) Make sure you have your recent RAID 0 array image backed up to a known location (ie, secondary mechanical drive) using Windows Backup
2) Reboot into BIOS and change Intel RAID mode to IDE
3) Save BIOS settings and reboot with Parted Magic boot disk/USB
4)Secure erase drives with Parted Magic (takes a couple of minutes tops). Sometimes there are issues with the SSDs being locked. The easiest way around this is if you have a secondary SATA controller. Connecting the drives to this controller for the secure erase will get around this. There are also other workarounds if you encounter this.
5)Reboot into BIOS, change storage controller back to RAID mode.
6)Reconfigure RAID 0 array to exact same size that it was initially.
7) Boot into Windows Recovery. (Load RAID controller if you need it - ie, X79 chipset). Reload Windows Backup image.

Sure TRIM is easier, but you shouldn't have to do this very often, if at all, with the newer SSD controllers (like once, maaaybe twice a year with heavier usage and perhaps even less frequently). It doesn't take too long, and you can do it with freely available software. I wasn't noticing performance degradation with my array, but I ended up having to reload my backed up image anyway so I thought I'd give it a try.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:42 am

just brew it! wrote:I don't see the point. Real-world performance isn't going to be noticably better in most cases, the total cost is going to be about the same as a single larger SSD, you've got the (potential) TRIM issue, and the odds of data loss are much higher. Why bother?


How else can you get 900 Mb/s sequential read speeds on benchmarks for a relatively low investment (ie, no PCIe SSDs)? :lol:
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:56 am

Compton wrote:
TheWacoKid wrote:Except that small random reads below the stripe size can still be twice as fast since there are two drives servicing requests rather than one...


I really don't think that's true, but even if it is, how would two drives service one 4K file that's only on one drive? Or if the 4K file was on both drives, how does it read from both any faster than one?

As long as the queue depth is over 1, the array can service requests essentially twice as fast as a single drive as long as the files (or stripes) are physically on separate drives.

cynan wrote:How else can you get 900 Mb/s sequential read speeds on benchmarks for a relatively low investment (ie, no PCIe SSDs)? :lol:

Explain how those benchmarks are real-world again? :P

I went from my Vertex 3 RAID 0 array (which broke 1 GB/s) to a single Vertex 120 GB (yes, Vertex 1) running Intel SRT on an older 750 GB Seagate 7200.10. It's just as fast in real-world use with the exception of file copy times for large files (where it still gets over 100 MB/s, which is fine since I do most of my transfers over gigabit).

The hassle for RAID 0 just isn't worth it for the benefits you get. A single larger drive will always be my recommendation.
Z68XP-UD4 | 2700K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB | 770 | PCP&C Silencer 950 | XSPC RX360 | Heatkiller R3 | D5 + RP-452X2 | HAF 932 | 1 TB WD Black w/ SRT
Waco
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:08 pm

Waco wrote:
The hassle for RAID 0 just isn't worth it for the benefits you get. A single larger drive will always be my recommendation.


Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. The only thing a RAID 0 array gets you in the "real world" that a single drive doesn't is capacity. The OP seems to be interested in an SSD drive that is 1TB at minimum. Obviously the most cost effective way to achieve this is to use 2x 512GB SSDs in RAID 0 off the onboard Intel controller. When I got my SSDs, I convinced myself that I needed to go with the Corsair Performance Pros, yet wanted 500GB of space. The Performance Pro doesn't come in 512GB. But in retrospect I may have been just as well off with a 512GB Samsung 830 and it would have been simpler.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:11 pm

To be honest anyone who says they can FEEL a difference in speed between any of the non-JMicron controlled drives is full of it. :lol:

I ran my Vertex 3 array right next to my fiancee's Agility 3 and my old Vertex 1 (well, technically it was a G.Skill Falcon, but same difference) and there was literally zero difference in real-world use. Hell, there's no difference between any of them and my Intel SRT setup except that my SRT setup has 750 GB of space and it cost next to nothing. :P
Z68XP-UD4 | 2700K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB | 770 | PCP&C Silencer 950 | XSPC RX360 | Heatkiller R3 | D5 + RP-452X2 | HAF 932 | 1 TB WD Black w/ SRT
Waco
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:55 pm

kamikaziechameleon wrote:
moriz wrote:intel claims that their next RST driver will enable TRIM for RAIDed SSDs, so that should solve a lot of problems. however, OP's system is an AMD, most of them don't have Intel's Matrix RAID, not to mention access to intel RST drivers. with that said, most modern drives have good enough garbage collection that TRIM isn't needed that much. the intel 320 series happens to have very good GC, so most of them time, it doesn't particularly need TRIM anyway.

also, larger SSDs often don't have faster read speed, but do have faster write. in every case though, 2x120GB will end up being almost twice as fast as 1x240. for instance, 2x crucial m4 128GB can hit 1GB/s sequential read.



So as I'm changing jobs and some investments are maturing I'd like to finally start laying the groundwork for this to happen. What would I need for Trim to function in RAID0??? What SSDs would you all recommend for such a venture? I'm looking to do a 1 or 2 gb array and then back it up on a 2 gb caviar green drive. I'd be doing this in about 3 months or 4 months time. Thanks for all the info up to this point.


The real question is 'why?'. For daily use, there's just no need for it- even the relatively slow Crucial M4 feels as fast as anything out there. If you need the transfer rates for a specific application you could build an array of larger drives for that, and then use a single small drive for the OS with Trim support, or even a smaller drive with RST and a decent spinner. The cheapest ~500GB SATA3 drives plus any ~120GB SATA3 drive would give you outstanding overall performance without putting the integrity of your OS drive into question, and wouldn't be much more expensive (maybe even cheaper!) than using a pair of the fastest ~500GB drives you can find.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: RAID 0 and SSD

Postposted on Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:03 am

just brew it! wrote:I don't see the point. Real-world performance isn't going to be noticably better in most cases, the total cost is going to be about the same as a single larger SSD, you've got the (potential) TRIM issue, and the odds of data loss are much higher. Why bother?



I think you didn't see my 3rd post on this thread. Its not for performance if it is only as fast as a single ssd that's fine though I'd like to get every benefit possible. The actual intent is to make a 1 or 2 Tb system drive out of the raid that can easily be made an image for backup purposes on a caviar green. Imaging multiple separate drives to protect licenses and save restore time is just not something I'm willing to do. Games and other software with limited licenses are a PITA to deal with when a HDD crashes. I could be on the phone for a week to get back seats of programs. I was on the phone half a day to restore a CS suite license. Never bothered with games I've always just repurchased them. At any rate I figured as long as I'm making a backup system why not. If you have any more insightful ideas as to how I can back up every aspect of my machine besides a image please inform.
kamikaziechameleon
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:38 pm

Next

Return to Storage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests