1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Win 7 & RAID vs SSD

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by James, May 11, 2010.

  1. James

    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!)
     
  2. Mad Ad

    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
     
  3. Jackie

    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. :(
     
  4. John B. Slocomb

    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)
     
  5. Jackie

    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.
     
  6. smithdoerr

    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
     
  7. Colon Terminus

    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.
     
  8. James

    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!
     
  9. Char Jackson

    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.
     
  10. Gene E. Bloch

    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
     
  11. John B. Slocomb

    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)
     
  12. John B. Slocomb

    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)
     
  13. James

    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).
     

Share This Page