add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

High Performance SSD and RAID

Ryoutarou97
  • 61 months ago

I am planning to use the typical high speed boot drive with slower mass storage drive setup. But I don't really need a full terabyte of mass storage that most people go with either, so my thought was to have a very fast 250gb (or 240 or 256) boot drive where I would keep my most used stuff, then a cheap slower 500gb SSD for mass storage. My plan was to RAID 0 two 120gb drives to make the fast boot volume, but I don't really know which drives to use. Does anyone have any ideas for which drives would be good for it? I have about $150 (though I can go a bit over, it's not a hard limet) to spend on the boot portion of my storage, does anyone have any suggestions?

The ones I am currently considering are:

3 Kingston HyperX 3k 90gb drives since they're of an abnormal capacity, that would give me more space, probably more performance with the extra drive, although I don't know how they perform, so it might not be that great of an option. Motherboard RAID speeds start to drop off after a few drives, so it might be limited there a bit.

Next up, since they're such good drives, 2 850 evo's. might work.

Those are about the same price as 2 intel 530's, and between the two I can't decide which is better.

Also, I will be using the MSI SLI Krait as a motherboard which I think supports NVME so those drives are fine as long as they don't take up either of the two graphics card PCI slots.

Comments

  • 61 months ago
  • 2 points

Your best bet is to forget the RAID completely and get a good, fast ssd. Min 240gb. 500gb if you have the budget.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes, but why get one good, fast SSD when you can have 2-3?

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Because one good, fast ssd is superior to two mediocre ssd's in a RAID config. RAID has overhead. And the smaller the ssd the slower the drive. You're adding complexity and complications to something that should be simple and reliable.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Hmm... maybe then 2 250's for mass storage and boot. Might be a bit too little, though.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

One reason people decide to go with large secondary storage for RAID0 setups is for periodic imaging of the array. IMO, having a RAID0 without that is very insecure and irresponsible. The same goes for having an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) between your PSU and the wall when running RAID so that the array never drops. I would factor in the cost of a UPS if you're considering RAID0 - and 3-drive RAID0 at that.

850 Evos or Crucial MX100s would be my pick for the boot array. You don't need super high speed drives, since that's the point of RAID anyways (the I stands for inexpensive). After a certain point you don't notice any speed increase as things are just so instant.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

I was also going to use a 1tb HDD to do a backup every once in a while of both the 500gb and boot , so no worries there. What can happen if the array drops, and how much would a UPS cost?

Is there any Redundancy in RAID 0?I'm aware that I don't really need a PCIe SSD, but the point of the boot volume is SPEED! ALL CAPS SPEED! For example, Skyrim (according to Tek Syndicate video) loads in 19 seconds off of a single 3k. Sure, that's way better than a HDD (Something like 2 mins), but it's nowhere near the level where speed increases are unnoticable.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Is there any Redundancy in RAID 0?

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

I know what the RAID levels are, but thanks. I was just responding to

the I stands for inexpensive

since the R in RAID stands for redundant (thus the bold/italics) I was just pointing out that one of the most common levels of RAID already violates the definition.

Not to be that guy, but it was a rhetorical question.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

My point, if you wish to take anything useful out of it, is that with RAID0 it is extremely easy to reach a point where the speed of your storage volume no longer noticeably increases in the real world despite benchmarking higher. So just as a warning, don't go overboard by buying super fast, top of the line SSDs to achieve some superficial standard of speed when in reality a less expensive SSD will do just as well. That's all I was trying to say.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

There is no redundancy in a RAID 0 setup. If one disk fails, the entire setup fails.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

/\ | |

:D

  • 61 months ago
  • 2 points

Well, that failed. Just... imagine an arrow pointing up. sigh

[comment deleted]
  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

SSDs in raid 0 is a benchmark spec win but actual real world performance increase is non-existent to minimal - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

So, 730? 750? What would you suggest?

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

They're both good, 750 (or the samsung pcie drive, I forget the model number) is untouchable by a sata3 drive tho iirc they will suck up some pcie lanes (I forget how many... apparently I'm forgeting everything these days), samsung 850 pro has the best of the 730 as per userbenchmark.com tho - http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Intel-730-Series-240GB/2385vs2031

edit. alt key codes, 30 ▲, 24 ↑ ;)

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Do you mean Samsung's SM951 M.2 drive? If I remember correctly, it reaches something like 2000MB/s read, 1200MB/s write...

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah it's something like that, I thought there was a non-m2 version too tho.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

I know they have some... mSATA(?) versions of the 850 SSD series.

Though, maybe you're thinking of using it in an M.2 to PCIe adapter card? There are a few models (none from Samsung I believe) that are sold like that.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Going through this thread it looks like you're chasing butterflies. You want "fast" just because and are willing to give up guaranteed speed for some theoretical config that will razzle dazzle everyone. Why? Just get a good quality drive and relax.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

What do you mean about guaranteed speed? I want a "fast" because I am willing to give up money for lower load times. The idea is to have a good drive for mass storage and a hyper-fast one for booting and for a few of my most used applications.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

If you just want "hyper fast" without really considering cost, then you already know what to do. Look up the fastest SSD you can get and then get several of them. I don't understand what question you have. Because anything that we say will take into account money.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

RAID is significantly less expensive per capacity compared to PCIe SSDs. Let me rephrase, I am willing to pay a bit more for speed. Around 90% of my computer usage uses about 40% of the space on my drives, so making that 40% faster seems both very useful and much more cost effective than making it all faster.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Have you considered any of the 8x or 4x PCI-E drives? Theoretically the fastest drives out there, and with Kingston's new Predator offering I think there might be a real winner for you there... however as to whether you can do RAID on a PCI-E linked device - I have no idea.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

I did, but those are crazy expensive.

  • 61 months ago
  • 2 points

I'm surprised you're balking at cost when you're considering SSD RAID.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

RAID isn't too expensive compared to just one SSD. For example, the 250gb 850 evo is $98. Two of them are $196. The 500gb Evo is $195. That's a $1 difference which probably won't be larger than about $30 at maximum.

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, you've got twice the failure rate there, and there's a significant debate right now over whether most users could even see any kind of noticeable improvement over regular SSD performance in SSD RAID. Do you have some specific application in mind that you are planning on using this RAID setup for, such as large video scratch or something like that?

  • 61 months ago
  • 1 point

On top of that, the EVO's use software tricks to get their performance. Tricks that work for only one drive at a time. So RAID is out. You keep getting told the same thing by all of us. RAID is not a good protocol for ssd's. Getting one good drive is superior to any other config that you've proposed.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube