# 3 x 30Gb OCZ Vertex Raid 0 Array?



## mcloughj (Mar 4, 2009)

Thinking of putting together a 90gb raid array with 3 x 30Gb ocz vertex drives. In total it would cost about 400 euro... Would you do it? I sometimes worry about my sanity when it comes to computer gear....


----------



## Disparia (Mar 4, 2009)

Yes, yes I would.


----------



## CyberDruid (Mar 4, 2009)

Take a look at the G Skill Titan. The dual controller cures stuttering pretty much.


----------



## waxking1 (Mar 11, 2009)

I think I would just get the 120GB Vertex with 64mb cache.  I haven't heard any reports of any stuttering in the Vertex series.  Also wouldn't you need to purchase a controller card for the 3 way raid?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 11, 2009)

The Vertex is the best SSD out now, doesn't use that junk controller that still stutters even with the dual crap and firmware updates. If you're going to get a high perf ssd for your desktop only get a vertex. I don't even trust intel now with that fragmentation stuff. Not that it matters, the vertex is faster and cheaper than the intel too.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 11, 2009)

depends on your needs. if you're just a gamer, get one large one.

be kinda useless if your windows goes from 3 seconds boot time to 2.95, or your games go from 5 seconds to 4 seconds... you wont get a huge boost from multiple drives, like you would from a mechanical to one SSD.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 11, 2009)

Mussels said:


> depends on your needs. if you're just a gamer, get one large one.
> 
> be kinda useless if your windows goes from 3 seconds boot time to 2.95, or your games go from 5 seconds to 4 seconds... you wont get a huge boost from multiple drives, like you would from a mechanical to one SSD.



really only this difference , so for me i chose large one ssd


----------



## sethk (Mar 29, 2009)

Mussels said:


> depends on your needs. if you're just a gamer, get one large one.
> 
> be kinda useless if your windows goes from 3 seconds boot time to 2.95, or your games go from 5 seconds to 4 seconds... you wont get a huge boost from multiple drives, like you would from a mechanical to one SSD.



Over a certain speed, maybe the benefits are less noticeable - depends on the user. I think speed benefits are still noticeable. Watch this video for the concept taken to extremes: http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/09/24-samsung-ssds-get-strung-together-for-supercomputer-fun/
If you prefer raw number, read some of the recent reviews running Vertex drives in RAID - the performance scaling is very impressive.

In fact SSD drives show a much better (closer to linear) scaling than mechanical drives in RAID because of the very low latency, leading to much less blocking (no need to perform head aligns). So I would not agree in general with the assumption that SSD drives will show less of a boost in RAID 0 compared to mechanical drives in RAID.

Running multiple drives in RAID is a pain and expensive, but the performance benefits for the hardcore are undeniable, compared to a single larger drive.


----------



## LittleLizard (Mar 29, 2009)

the best use for a ssd i ever see was to use it for a ps3


----------



## renozi (Mar 29, 2009)

I'm about to get 2 30GB vertex for raid 0, so yes, I'd do it in a second!


----------



## cheapskate1988 (Apr 1, 2009)

renozi said:


> I'm about to get 2 30GB vertex for raid 0, so yes, I'd do it in a second!



I am about to do the exact same thing! What kind of raid controller are you going to use? I am not all that familiar with raid, but would like to know if I could get away with using some onboard controller on a socket 775 motherboard. I am building the system from scratch, so if you could recommend a motherboard that would be able to realize the performance gains of the two ssds in raid 0, it would be much appreciated. If you think I have to get a raid controller, any ideas on which one and how much cache? I might just bail out on the concept if I have to get a raid controller over 200 dollars. 

If worse comes to worse, I might just get a 30 GB vertex as a system disk, but I don't know what kind of benefit I should expect from that.


----------



## renozi (Apr 1, 2009)

yea i'm just using the onboard intel chipset ich9r controller. I think we can get away with using the onboard controller for up to 500-600MB/s. I don't know what motherboard you have so I can't say if yours has a raid controller or not but if it does then there's no real need to go out and buy a raid card. I mean you'll probably gain 5-10MB/s on the onboard controller, if that. Hope that helps, I'll post once I get my vertexes...it's starting to get itchy waiting for them!


----------



## Studabaker (Apr 1, 2009)

It's been my idea to RAID0 two of the 32Gigger (I was thinking Patriot) SSD's for a WHILE now, so yes, YES I WOULD!


----------



## renozi (Apr 1, 2009)

cheapskate1988, by any chance were you born in '88?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 1, 2009)

I'd like to RAID0 4 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227396


----------



## renozi (Apr 1, 2009)

Me too, but I don't have $3500 :/


----------



## cheapskate1988 (Apr 1, 2009)

You guessed it. 1988 was a great year to enter this God-forsaken place we call reality. It's been a good time so far. 

I think I have got some of the final specifications for this computer I'm going to be building over the summer. Gotta save a bit more, but I still have some concerns. Principally, I am still not sure if the OCZ Vertex 30 GB, which is an MLC-based drive, is going to last long enough if I put the page file on it. The SLC products are just way too pricy right now, but I would want this drive to last for a least five years until the prices come down for an SLC replacement. 

Do you think it would be reasonable to put my page file on the the RAID Disk? My plan would be to put XP, the page file, major applications and the occasional game on the 58 GB partition  that the RAID 0 would create. I would then have a traditional hard disk as the main storage drive. Would having applications and the page file on the same SSD partition slow the apps down and defeat the purpose?

Bunch of questions, I know, but I am very eager to hear your results. I am going to be using a GIGABYTE GA-EG45M-UD2H LGA 775 Intel G45 HDMI Micro ATX with an ICH10R south bridge. It'll have an E8500 Wolfdale, 4 GB of Mushkin DDR2 1066, and my current HD 4670 1 GB GDDR3. 

I am not a heavy gamer, but enjoy the occasional round of Fallout 3, Call of Duty 2 or any of the Total War games. My main goal is to have a workhorse computer because I cannot stand waiting on technology. Hopefully we won't have to anymore.


----------



## cheapskate1988 (Apr 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I'd like to RAID0 4 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227396



Holy hell. At that point you might as well spring for the SLC drives. Intel and Samsung have some beasts that are in that price range that are even faster and will prove to be more reliable. That is going to be one kick-ass computer either way.


----------



## renozi (Apr 1, 2009)

sweet another '88 child! 

Since I have 8gb of ram I chose not to have a page file at all. It's pretty much useless to me. And the last time I put my page file on another raid 0 volume I had, one of the drives had an error and it cost me a clean install and some loss of files. So with my experience of that, never again will I have page file or if needed, put a page file on a raid volume. But then again that's just my luck, you might have a better experience. who knows?

The problem with page file on the SSD is that you want to extend the life of your SSD as long as you can and that means lowering random writes as much as possible.  Page file would mean increased random writes to the SSD, and over at the OCZ forums one of the features they suggest you turn off if you can is pagefile, along with prefetch and superfetch, and drive indexing. 

Hope that helps, should be getting my vertexes today or tomorrow.


----------



## cheapskate1988 (Apr 1, 2009)

I guess you are right. 4 GB is probably sufficient to disable the page file anyway. Especially in XP. It cant be doing all that much if XP doesn't really occupy all that much physical memory anyway. 

Now there will be no moving parts, but better yet, no moving virtual memory constantly filling up and dumping itself.


----------



## renozi (Apr 1, 2009)

one of the guys over at the OCZ forum did this
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=923

i know it's against a laptop hdd but still, it's frakin' fast!


----------



## Wile E (Apr 1, 2009)

cheapskate1988 said:


> I guess you are right. 4 GB is probably sufficient to disable the page file anyway. Especially in XP. It cant be doing all that much if XP doesn't really occupy all that much physical memory anyway.
> 
> Now there will be no moving parts, but better yet, no moving virtual memory constantly filling up and dumping itself.



Disabling the pagefile is a bad idea, regardless of the amount of ram you have. Some programs require it to run properly, regardless.


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Disabling the pagefile is a bad idea, regardless of the amount of ram you have. Some programs require it to run properly, regardless.



yep


----------



## cheapskate1988 (Apr 1, 2009)

Good to know. I know there has always been some debate about pagefiles. Any recommendations then on where to place the page file? Could its being on an MLC limit the lifespan to under five years? It would be a little disappointing if the performance gains were lowered by having to put it on a conventional disk.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 2, 2009)

cheapskate1988 said:


> Good to know. I know there has always been some debate about pagefiles. Any recommendations then on where to place the page file? Could its being on an MLC limit the lifespan to under five years? It would be a little disappointing if the performance gains were lowered by having to put it on a conventional disk.



With the super low seek times, I'd try to leave it on the SSD first. I would compare putting it on a separate drive tho, just in case.


----------



## renozi (Apr 2, 2009)

until I run into those programs, my pagefile remains off.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 2, 2009)

renozi said:


> until I run into those programs, my pagefile remains off.



Photoshop


----------



## Studabaker (Apr 2, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Photoshop



That is the only program I ever ran into that had that problem.  But I swear it gave me the option to make it's own pagefile.


----------



## Rock God (Apr 2, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I'd like to RAID0 4 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227396


I've got 2 120GB's in RAID 0


----------



## Wile E (Apr 2, 2009)

Rock God said:


> I've got 2 120GB's in RAID 0



Nice. Now send them to me. lol


----------



## Rock God (Apr 2, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Nice. Now send them to me. lol




Speed improvement is excellent over my Maxtor 500 7200rpm.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 2, 2009)

Rock God said:


> Speed improvement is excellent over my Maxtor 500 7200rpm.



I've been looking at the speeds of these Vertex series drives, and just 1 of them is faster than my 320GB x 2 7200.10 RAID0. I really want one now. lol. But 30GB is just too small. I would want at least 2 120GB drive in a RAID0 to have enough space, but that's just too pricey right now. I'll wait it out a little while longer, for some better pricing.


----------



## ruslan120 (Jun 15, 2009)

*No, just no*



Wile E said:


> With the super low seek times, I'd try to leave it on the SSD first. I would compare putting it on a separate drive tho, just in case.



That wouldn't be a very wise move; ssd's have a limited amount of write cycles and you would quickly wear out your ssd. Or, at least MUCH quicker than you normally would have. I'd recommend get plenty of ram (8 gb with ddr2, 12 gb with i7) and sitting back and relaxing  Of course, I can't say much; I have 3 gb of ram, gonna put the pagefile on a wd 1 tb for storage.
Oh yeah:
2x 30 GB Vertex (Ordered Saturday, coming in two days  )
1 x WD Greendrive 1 TB

But yeah.... NO PAGEFILE ON SSD!


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 15, 2009)

ruslan120 said:


> 1 x WD Greendrive 1 TB
> 
> But yeah.... NO PAGEFILE ON SSD!



1. Be sure you _really_ want the Greendrive http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=90510&highlight=clunk

2. Registry on HD also?   How do you do that? If you have plenty of RAM, then the registry is going to hammer the SSD not the pagefile. Or? But with registry and pagefile on HDD, then you probably "lose" much of the "gains" of going to SSD.


----------



## ruslan120 (Jun 15, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> 1. Be sure you _really_ want the Greendrive http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=90510&highlight=clunk
> 
> 2. Registry on HD also?   How do you do that? If you have plenty of RAM, then the registry is going to hammer the SSD not the pagefile. Or? But with registry and pagefile on HDD, then you probably "lose" much of the "gains" of going to SSD.



1. Thanks! Although it's kind of too late, I've bought it a while ago. It has clunked but not very loudly and only when parking after a long inactivity. 
2. Don't worry about it  Just disable your pagefile (and if you need it THAT bad enable it on the hdd) and use your ssd's  ORRR since the pagefile is rarely used if you have plenty of RAM then get a nice 8 GB e-sata Flash Drive and stick the pagefile on that. It'll rarely be used and quite speedy! (OCZ Throttle, e-sata)

ANYWAYS (redirecting the thread back to its original purpose) I would recommend two vertex's in raid 0, three if you have the funds. For my personal uses two is overkill (gaming, video editing) but it's VERY nice to have such speedy storage, fast bootup and shutdown times, game loads, and everything in general (500 MB/s   )


----------



## ruslan120 (Jun 15, 2009)

OCZ Forums:
"Using a page file will result in extra write operations. Writing a lot of data will degrade the performance of your drive. It will also shorten the lifespan of the drive. That's why you should avoid completely useless writes.

The page file shouldn't be used during normal operation as long as there are some free memory available. Some Windows version thinks otherwise and would gladly page any memory whenever it feels like it. That's what this discussion is all about.

Disabling it will not harm your system. If you do disable it, make sure you save critical changes often. If you don't encounter any problems after a week or possibly a month, keep it disabled. Else, re-enable it. "


----------



## EviLZeD (Jun 15, 2009)

I have my pagefile disabled no issues at all all my apps and games run fine including photoshop. But i do beleive if you leave some of these processes running (superfetch, indexing, pagefile, system restore) it may degrade ssd lifespan but they should still last 3+ years surely


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 15, 2009)

EviLZeD said:


> I have my pagefile disabled no issues at all all my apps and games run fine including photoshop. But i do beleive if you leave some of these processes running (superfetch, indexing, pagefile, system restore) it may degrade ssd lifespan but they should still last 3+ years surely



Yeah actually SSDs have a 1,000,000+ hour MBTF which is years and years and years of use...


----------



## Mussels (Jun 15, 2009)

people always confuse that. on a HDD, if a sector goes bad, its the end of the drive. the whole thing soon follows.

With SSD, if one cell goes bad... big whoop, its blacklisted and the data goes somewhere else.

Even if you abuse the hell out of an SSD, the usable data will get smaller and smaller, but it wont just shut off and eat your data when you reach some magic number of writes.


----------



## ruslan120 (Jun 15, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> Yeah actually SSDs have a 1,000,000+ hour MBTF which is years and years and years of use...



I think you're confusing that with the time before the actual ssd fails, controller, board and all. The mlc cells wear out after about 1,000-10,000 writes. We DO have wear leveling technology as well as other improved techs, but why un-necessarily and untimely kill your ssd?


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 15, 2009)

ruslan120 said:


> I think you're confusing that with the time before the actual ssd fails, controller, board and all. The mlc cells wear out after about 1,000-10,000 writes. We DO have wear leveling technology as well as other improved techs, but why un-necessarily and untimely kill your ssd?



Thanks for the deeper info, I think Mussels cleared things up quite nicely too.


----------



## Disparia (Jun 15, 2009)

ruslan120 said:


> I think you're confusing that with the time before the actual ssd fails, controller, board and all. The mlc cells wear out after about 1,000-10,000 writes. We DO have wear leveling technology as well as other improved techs, but why un-necessarily and untimely kill your ssd?



Three years of life vs five years of life? Doesn't matter to me, as I've already moved on to faster drives after a year


----------



## Wile E (Jun 16, 2009)

ruslan120 said:


> OCZ Forums:
> "Using a page file will result in extra write operations. Writing a lot of data will degrade the performance of your drive. It will also shorten the lifespan of the drive. That's why you should avoid completely useless writes.
> 
> The page file shouldn't be used during normal operation as long as there are some free memory available. Some Windows version thinks otherwise and would gladly page any memory whenever it feels like it. That's what this discussion is all about.
> ...


Again, I point to Photoshop, unless that changed in CS4. As of CS3, it still needed a pagefile to run properly, even when I put in 8GB of ram. And another thing some people don't realize, is that even if you disable the pagefile, windows will still cache to disc, whether you like it or not. It's far better to have it enabled, and control the size and placement of it, than it is to try to completely disable it, as Windows will use a temp one when needed, of a size and placement of it's choosing.



EviLZeD said:


> I have my pagefile disabled no issues at all all my apps and games run fine including photoshop. But i do beleive if you leave some of these processes running (superfetch, indexing, pagefile, system restore) it may degrade ssd lifespan but they should still last 3+ years surely


What version of Photoshop? As of CS3, it won't run properly without a pagefile. And if it is still running with a pagefile disabled, refer to my text above.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 16, 2009)

i always set my pagefile to a static 1GB file. its used if its needed, and i dont get temp ones changing size, fragmenting my drive.


----------



## ruslan120 (Jun 16, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Three years of life vs five years of life? Doesn't matter to me, as I've already moved on to faster drives after a year



Makin' da old man proud :'] 

About Photoshop, one could make a nice sized RAM Drive. Let's say you have 9 GB RAM. There is NO WAY you'll be using that much unless you, I don't know, run 120 programs at once, so one could make a nice 3 GB RAM drive and stick the pagefile on that. It could be restored on bootup in a matter of seconds (read pagefile off of ram drive at shutdown, write to ssd, at bootup copy to ram drive). But this whole thing is a completely dumb thing. Microsoft should have fixed this YEARS ago, and the same goes for Photoshop; if there is a sufficient amount of RAM there should NEVER be a pagefile, just like in linux where swap is never used unless needed. I know, I know, some apps require gigabytes upon gigabytes of pagefile, swap, or whatever you want to call it, but the OS should only use the pagefile in those cases, not while idling (cough cough vista).


----------

