Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    raid 0 on 2 SSDs worth it?

    Corsair Force Series 3 Solid State Disk 120 GB

    I'm getting 2 off these in about a weeks time, and i was wondering if it's worth putting them in raid 0?

    and if there is anything special i need to do with windows once i get them?

    ive seen mention off reducing pagefiles which i know how to do but also having to install an RST intell program if you wish to raid 2 SSD?

    basically im going to use them for windows and the games i use regurlarly..

  2. #2
    Unless you need the raw speed for a professional environment (importing/exporting/encoding 40 gig files), then there really isn't a point.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  3. #3
    SSD vs HDD is a big speed improvement. SSD vs RAID0 of SSD is a small speed improvement, and I would not do it because of the extra problems involved with it.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  4. #4
    Field Marshal fableman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    82
    Last edited by fableman; 2011-11-21 at 11:33 AM.

  5. #5
    The problem you usually have it RAID0 SSDs cant support TRIM so you can loose quite a bit of performance over the usage of them in the long run.

  6. #6
    I don't see a point with SSD's really. The only thing that will improve - reading/writing HUGE files - that's something you better keep on HDD. Also you increase the chance of losing the data by 2.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fableman View Post
    Eh? Looking at those benchmarks, IOPS actually go down compared to using one drive. And you lose TRIM. So unless you copy huge files around all day, you might as well stick with one drive.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by fableman View Post
    No it isn't. Random access is delayed by a whopping 2ms, oh boy! Other than that, why in the world would a normal user need 500MB write speeds instead of 250?

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-21 at 11:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Notreally View Post
    Eh? Looking at those benchmarks, IOPS actually go down compared to using one drive. And you lose TRIM. So unless you copy huge files around all day, you might as well stick with one drive.
    Your name is quite fitting.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  9. #9
    Raid0 on 2 SSD is 2x speed increase. Ofc its worth it.

    Actually any SSD is huge raid0 disk made from ssd memory chips. So doubling the amount of memory chips doubles the speed(and size obviously).

    The only problem here is TRIM. If raid0 was made by manufacture, you will get trim.
    If you made raid0 with external raid controller, you will not get trim.
    It means that your disk will die soon. Well, not too soon. Most likely in few years when you will already want to replace it.

    So if you can afford larger SSD with better speed - go for it. If you can't - use raid0.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by traen View Post
    Raid0 on 2 SSD is 2x speed increase.
    Mathematically you are right. But let's stay practical. For example, 5mb file could be read in 20ms by a single SSD. RAID0 (2 SSD) makes it 10ms. It's twice the speed - but WHO CARES on such small times? You won't notice it. The big difference comes with BIG files - 200mb in a second against 400mb in a second - that's a huge difference. But again SSD's are not for huge files. Because the only major difference (SSDvsHDD) in reading huge files (sequental) is initial access time. Reading speeds are comparable. It's random access read/writes of small files that make SSD shine you do not need RAID0 for that, really. You may want it, but certainly do not need. It's a waste of money IMO.

    You need RAID0 SSD only if your really NEED that speed increase for huge files that you NEED to keep on SSD. This way it's worth it.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by traen View Post
    Raid0 on 2 SSD is 2x speed increase. Ofc its worth it.

    Actually any SSD is huge raid0 disk made from ssd memory chips. So doubling the amount of memory chips doubles the speed(and size obviously).

    The only problem here is TRIM. If raid0 was made by manufacture, you will get trim.
    If you made raid0 with external raid controller, you will not get trim.
    It means that your disk will die soon. Well, not too soon. Most likely in few years when you will already want to replace it.

    So if you can afford larger SSD with better speed - go for it. If you can't - use raid0.
    Can you provide any examples of "ofc its worth it"? What benefits would a gamer receive with a 500MB write speed without TRIM vs a 250MB write speed with TRIM?

    Hint: There aren't any.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    Mathematically you are right. But let's stay practical. For example, 5mb file could be read in 20ms by a single SSD. RAID0 (2 SSD) makes it 10ms. It's twice the speed - but WHO CARES on such small times? You won't notice it. The big difference comes with BIG files - 200mb in a second against 400mb in a second - that's a huge difference. But again SSD's are not for huge files. Because the only major difference (SSDvsHDD) in reading huge files (sequental) is initial access time. Reading speeds are comparable. It's random access read/writes of small files that make SSD shine you do not need RAID0 for that, really. You may want it, but certainly do not need. It's a waste of money IMO.

    You need RAID0 SSD only if your really NEED that speed increase for huge files that you NEED to keep on SSD. This way it's worth it.
    World of Warcraft client is over 20GB.

    It takes noticable time to load it and it takes noticable time, usually followed by ingame lag, to load new zones.
    SSD raid makes HUGE difference.

    And its not like WoW is the only game with 5-10GB of data files.

  13. #13
    You do understand that when you play WoW, you're not loading all 20 gigs of game files, right? You initially load in about 800MB onto RAM/VRAM, which would take all of 2.5 seconds with a single SSD. The rest you load in as you play and run around, a SSD raid would make absolutely no difference there.

    So basically, you'd be able to theoretically cut your initial loading screen down from 2-3 seconds to 1.5-2.5.

    Again I ask you, do you have any legitimate benefits to dropping TRIM support and losing 120GB of storage just to RAID 0 two SSDs?
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by traen View Post
    World of Warcraft client is over 20GB.
    It's not a single file, you know. And WoW's not using them in sequential order.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    You do understand that when you play WoW, you're not loading all 20 gigs of game files, right? You initially load in about 800MB onto RAM/VRAM, which would take all of 2.5 seconds with a single SSD. The rest you load in as you play and run around, a SSD raid would make absolutely no difference there.

    So basically, you'd be able to theoretically cut your initial loading screen down from 2-3 seconds to 1.5-2.5.

    Again I ask you, do you have any legitimate benefits to dropping TRIM support and losing 120GB of storage just to RAID 0 two SSDs?
    Open Task manager, start WoW client and look at "Bytes read" column(you should turn it on in task manager settings) to understand how much data applications really read from disk. Its not 800MB. Its not even 20GB. Just try it.

    2x loading speed looks more than profitable for me.

    "losing 120GB of storage" ? Looks like you have no idea what raid0 means. Try wikipedia.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by traen View Post
    Open Task manager, start WoW client and look at "Bytes read"
    You really should understand the difference between "bytes read in applications's lifetime" and "huge file read at once".

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by traen View Post
    Open Task manager, start WoW client and look at "Bytes read" column(you should turn it on in task manager settings) to understand how much data applications really read from disk. Its not 800MB. Its not even 20GB. Just try it.

    2x loading speed looks more than profitable for me.

    "losing 120GB of storage" ? Looks like you have no idea what raid0 means. Try wikipedia.
    Yeah, sorry it's 7am and I was thinking of RAID 1 for a stupid reason. Regardless, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Bytes read in task manager is not accurate whatsoever since it counts cache reads, RAM activity, etc. Also, total bytes read/written is a far cry from the initial 800MB or so of memory loaded compared to the lifetime of the application being run. FURTHER, the majority of data exchanged during a game happens AFTER you're in-game. Running around zones loading data in real time will gain no benefit since 250MB reads will never be capped out in any modern game.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  18. #18

  19. #19
    I would use one of the fastest SSD's like OCZ Vertex3 240GB 500/450 read/write till Intel enables RAID 0 TRIM for SSD RAID's.

    SSD RAID 0 without TRIM => after a short time => BAD PERFORMANCE

  20. #20
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,413
    The point is for the average user/gamer there is no practical reason to go RAID 0 SSDs, yes it's faster duh... but for just loading a your random games, loading Windows and some other random tasks it doesn't matter at all. Do you you have the money to splurge around? Sure go ahead.

    It's like hearing those people in random threads telling people they should get some OCZ drive over a Crucial because the benchmarks shows it as faster, really you think the average user will notice? I sure don't. Also I, in that specific case, prefer stability over shaving off some milliseconds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •