• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Win 7 & RAID vs SSD

J

James

Flightless Bird
Is SSD (at apprx. 250MBs) faster than RAID?

(I have a desktop computer and I want the fastest damn drive access on
the planet!)
 
M

Mad Ad

Flightless Bird
"James" <anonymous@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hsd3ji0t0m@news5.newsguy.com...
> Is SSD (at apprx. 250MBs) faster than RAID?
>
> (I have a desktop computer and I want the fastest damn drive access on the
> planet!)

must be the day for general questions

i was thinking of raiding 2 usb memory sticks, but i can tell you they wont
be faster than a 6 year old mechanical drive *grin*

anyway, look up fibre channel
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
1x SSD sounds more appealing to me than 2+ noisy things that is spinning
at 7200+ RPM. Only thing that bugs me are the prices.
SSD in RAID sounds very delicious. There's this huge price gap between
around 100-200+ GB however, that takes quite some dedication. :(
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:05:03 +0200, Jackie <Jackie@an.on> wrote:

>1x SSD sounds more appealing to me than 2+ noisy things that is spinning
>at 7200+ RPM. Only thing that bugs me are the prices.
>SSD in RAID sounds very delicious. There's this huge price gap between
>around 100-200+ GB however, that takes quite some dedication. :(

I looked up an article on Tom's
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-ssd-performance,2518-5.html

Sort of interesting and certainly evidence that all SSDs are not
created equal :)

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/12/2010 13:54, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:05:03 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> wrote:
>
>> 1x SSD sounds more appealing to me than 2+ noisy things that is spinning
>> at 7200+ RPM. Only thing that bugs me are the prices.
>> SSD in RAID sounds very delicious. There's this huge price gap between
>> around 100-200+ GB however, that takes quite some dedication. :(
>
> I looked up an article on Tom's
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-ssd-performance,2518-5.html
>
> Sort of interesting and certainly evidence that all SSDs are not
> created equal :)
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Oh sure, of course. Same with regular HDDs (and anything else) though
but the technology is very mature and everyone should have had their
time to perfect their products by now.
It is quite embarrassing when certain SSDs are on par with or actually
worse than HDDs in some cases.
Well, but I guess they do so to lower costs and you get to choose the
right SSD for you, based on how you use your computer. I would just want
the best or near-best though. Just the price bugs me when you get to
200+ GB.
 
S

smithdoerr

Flightless Bird
"James" <anonymous@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hsd3ji0t0m@news5.newsguy.com...
> Is SSD (at apprx. 250MBs) faster than RAID?
>
> (I have a desktop computer and I want the fastest damn drive access on the
> planet!)

Do both. Get two (or more!) SSD s and raid configure them if you want the
fastest storage and cost isn't an issue.

But the more practical approch is to get a small SSD for the OS and key
programs and put everything else on HDD raid. You could even use two small
SSDs in raid for the OS but I don't know if the price/performance boost
would be worth it.





--

-smithdoerr
 
C

Colon Terminus

Flightless Bird
"James" <anonymous@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hsd3ji0t0m@news5.newsguy.com...
> Is SSD (at apprx. 250MBs) faster than RAID?
>
> (I have a desktop computer and I want the fastest damn drive access on the
> planet!)


I have three SSD's in a RAID 0 configuration.
I get a constant 675 MB/s random read rate.
Windows 7 64-bit.
 
J

James

Flightless Bird
On 5/12/2010 11:40 AM, Colon Terminus wrote:

> I have three SSD's in a RAID 0 configuration.
> I get a constant 675 MB/s random read rate.
> Windows 7 64-bit.

Wow! SSD RAID 0... this sounds like the way to go. BTW, I found a nice
little Ultra 2.5" 2-bay internal enclosure at tigerdirect.com. I think I
will get a couple of these and some Kingston 64GB V+ series drives.
Unless there are some faster SSDs for around the same price...?

Thanks everyone, for your input!
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:38:56 +0100, "Mad Ad"
<~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote:

>
>"James" <anonymous@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:hsd3ji0t0m@news5.newsguy.com...
>> Is SSD (at apprx. 250MBs) faster than RAID?
>>
>> (I have a desktop computer and I want the fastest damn drive access on the
>> planet!)
>
>i was thinking of raiding 2 usb memory sticks, but i can tell you they wont
>be faster than a 6 year old mechanical drive *grin*

"Fastest damn drive access" and USB don't belong in the same sentence.

As others have said, I would recommend a smallish SSD for the OS and
conventional hard drive(s) for everything else.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:39:06 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:38:56 +0100, "Mad Ad"
> <~~@...madmail(at)ntlworld(dot)com...@~~> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James" <anonymous@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:hsd3ji0t0m@news5.newsguy.com...
>>> Is SSD (at apprx. 250MBs) faster than RAID?
>>>
>>> (I have a desktop computer and I want the fastest damn drive access on the
>>> planet!)
>>
>>i was thinking of raiding 2 usb memory sticks, but i can tell you they wont
>>be faster than a 6 year old mechanical drive *grin*
>
> "Fastest damn drive access" and USB don't belong in the same sentence.
>
> As others have said, I would recommend a smallish SSD for the OS and
> conventional hard drive(s) for everything else.

Perhaps Mad Ad was being ironic, sardonic, or sarcastic...

--
Gene E. Bloch
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:26 +0200, Jackie <Jackie@an.on> wrote:

>On 5/12/2010 13:54, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:05:03 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> wrote:
>>
>>> 1x SSD sounds more appealing to me than 2+ noisy things that is spinning
>>> at 7200+ RPM. Only thing that bugs me are the prices.
>>> SSD in RAID sounds very delicious. There's this huge price gap between
>>> around 100-200+ GB however, that takes quite some dedication. :(
>>
>> I looked up an article on Tom's
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-ssd-performance,2518-5.html
>>
>> Sort of interesting and certainly evidence that all SSDs are not
>> created equal :)
>>
>> John B. Slocomb
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>Oh sure, of course. Same with regular HDDs (and anything else) though
>but the technology is very mature and everyone should have had their
>time to perfect their products by now.
>It is quite embarrassing when certain SSDs are on par with or actually
>worse than HDDs in some cases.
>Well, but I guess they do so to lower costs and you get to choose the
>right SSD for you, based on how you use your computer. I would just want
>the best or near-best though. Just the price bugs me when you get to
>200+ GB.


Probably the cheapest way, at the moment, would be to use a RAID for
data storage and a SSD as a "fast disk" containing application code
and a cache. Write data to the cache and use a daemon running in the
background to write cache data to RAID during low CPU usage periods.
It might also be possible to use some sort of memory cache, write that
cache out to SSD cache. It might let an application run full bore
without waiting on write-to-disk at all.

On the other hand, you'd be writing a DOS system :)

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:04:36 -0400, James <anonymous@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 5/12/2010 11:40 AM, Colon Terminus wrote:
>
>> I have three SSD's in a RAID 0 configuration.
>> I get a constant 675 MB/s random read rate.
>> Windows 7 64-bit.
>
>Wow! SSD RAID 0... this sounds like the way to go. BTW, I found a nice
>little Ultra 2.5" 2-bay internal enclosure at tigerdirect.com. I think I
>will get a couple of these and some Kingston 64GB V+ series drives.
>Unless there are some faster SSDs for around the same price...?
>
>Thanks everyone, for your input!
>
Check Tom's hardware site. He had a pretty comprehensive test of
various SSDs (and I think that the Kingston were among the slowest).
John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

James

Flightless Bird
On 5/13/2010 1:57 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

> Check Tom's hardware site. He had a pretty comprehensive test of
> various SSDs (and I think that the Kingston were among the slowest).
> John B. Slocomb

Kingston SSDNow V+ Series SNVP325-S2B/64GB 2.5" 64GB SATA II MLC
Internal Solid State Drive (SSD):

Sequential Access - Read: up to 230MB/s
Sequential Access - Write: up to 180MB/s
Power Consumption (Active): 2.6W
Power Consumption (Idle): 0.15W

These drives are among the best in performance/price ($189@newegg).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top