# SSD single 64gb or dual 32gb in Raid 0?



## bud951 (Jul 14, 2008)

I am thinking of moving to an Solid State Drive and I was wondering if Raid 0 makes a difference with these drives as it does with standard HD's. It would be the same price either way so I figure why not go with two 32gb SSD drives in Raid 0 instead of one 64gb? Any thoughts? Thanks.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 14, 2008)

bud951 said:


> I am thinking of moving to an Solid State Drive and I was wondering if Raid 0 makes a difference with these drives as it does with standard HD's. It would be the same price either way so I figure why not go with two 32gb SSD drives in Raid 0 instead of one 64gb? Any thoughts? Thanks.



You really think it's worth it to spend that much for 64gb? Raid 0 tends to be faster, so I guess 2, but I don't know why you would want to get them unless your itching to throw money away for something new, or you have some super deal you can get them for.


----------



## Black Panther (Jul 14, 2008)

If they're the same price I'll go for RAID0.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jul 15, 2008)

nonono, I disagree. I dont know this as fact, I have not even looked online to see if I am right but here it goes.

Raid 0 splits the data between the drives assuming there is a latency  because the disks are mechanical and therefore have a latency.

I suspect a SSDs latency is already the same speed or faster than the latency of a raid controler, I think you will effectivly be making your computer do more work for the same speed.


----------



## francis511 (Jul 15, 2008)

Raid definitely improves speed for ssds, tho` a fast controller helps


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Jul 15, 2008)

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1490/samsung_2_5_32gb_ssd_four_in_raid_0/index.html

Four drive in RAID 0.

Here is what I think about SSDs and where we are at right now.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1503/the_state_of_solid_state/index.html


----------



## GSG-9 (Jul 15, 2008)

It looks like those tests were on a 680i motherboard, Nvidias current generation (780i) raid controllers are significantly slower than intels current generation raid controller ICH9R (http://techreport.com/articles.x/13790/4) (Thats assuming the 780i is faster than the 680i...which...I dont think it is strangely...)

I imagine it would be even faster on the ICH9R.


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Jul 15, 2008)

They are actually ran on an Areca SAS controller. The Intel ICH9R has a problem that Intel apparently can't fix. It will limit your read speeds to around 80MB/s. The problem is well known and talked about a great deal. That is why I test SSDs with the 680i and the Areca controller.

It really sucks since most notebooks use an Intel Chipset that is also hit by the Intel SSD bug.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jul 15, 2008)

but the ICH9R is faster than the 780i though  (I know the 680i is faster than the 780i)


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Jul 15, 2008)

This is your brain, this is your brain on... just kidding


Here is a single drive on an X38








Here are two drives on an X38







Intel RAID with SSD = Screwed up


Different drives but this will show you what they are suppose to look like. On a controller, single drive.







On a controller, two drive








Just for giggles, 3 drives







4 Drives


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Jul 15, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> but the ICH9R is faster than the 780i though  (I know the 680i is faster than the 780i)



For regular hard drives yes, for SSD NO.


----------



## bud951 (Jul 15, 2008)

So on my 780i MB controller 2 SSD drives in Raid 0 is no good? I should just go for a 64gb and upgrade later to another 64gb when I get a new MB or HD controller card? Sorry, Im a bit confused. Thanks for input.


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Jul 15, 2008)

You will be fine with two drives on your 780i in RAID 0, it will be faster than a single 64. We got a little off subject, sorry about that


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jul 15, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> nonono, I disagree. I dont know this as fact, I have not even looked online to see if I am right but here it goes.
> 
> Raid 0 splits the data between the drives assuming there is a latency  because the disks are mechanical and therefore have a latency.
> 
> I suspect a SSDs latency is already the same speed or faster than the latency of a raid controler, I think you will effectivly be making your computer do more work for the same speed.



Doesn't make much sense. RAID 0 has noting to do with latency, it's all throughput. The controllers latency isn't something you're going to be noticing. Increase in performance will be about the same.

As for having your computer do more work, that's what you get for using onboard controllers.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 15, 2008)

good question , good reply , interesting thread for ssd , and about my opinion i think every hd on raid is faster than single


----------



## GSG-9 (Jul 15, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Doesn't make much sense. RAID 0 has noting to do with latency,



Raid was designed to work with traditional hard drives which do have a latency, It would make sense for the creators of raid controllers to take that into account. I do understand that Raid 0 arrays are designed to increase the bandwidth of the computer for reading and writing.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jul 15, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> Raid was designed to work with traditional hard drives which do have a latency, It would make sense for the creators of raid controllers to take that into account. I do understand that Raid 0 arrays are designed to increase the bandwidth of the computer for reading and writing.



So because normal harddrives have latency the throughput of SSD's can't be increased by accessing multiple at once? If anything, the lack of latency improves the gain due to the controller not having to wait for anything.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jul 15, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> So because normal harddrives have latency the throughput of SSD's can't be increased by accessing multiple at once? If anything, the lack of latency improves the gain due to the controller not having to wait for anything.



Theory being its like putting 1066mhz memory in a computer on a motherboard that can only run it at 800mhz. Its not going to run at 1066.

Were starting to go off topic, benchmarks are posted and they are not going to be disputed by me. 

I remember the iRam getting gains in a raid array now, I forgot about that. That kind of proved that raid controllers can handle the increased responsiveness of SSDs over a year ago (06?).

So I guess if your going to spend the money on the drives a raid 0 array would be best...who knows some day you might get 2 more, 128gb is not to shabby and that would be quite fast..


----------

