SSD~RAID or Single Drive

[AMD Lover]

So I can go two 512GB SSD's and put them in RAID 0 ( I love performance whether benchmarks or real world ) or I could go with a single 1TB SSD. The single 1TB is like $9 more than RAID.

[Entropy]

Never add unnecessary points of failure.

 

One drive to rule them all.

[AlwaysFSX]

Never add unnecessary points of failure.

 

One drive to rule them all.

Dat performance tho

[Askew]

Since you've not stated any intended purpose for the RAID speeds I'd go with the larger single drive.

[Poledancerz]

From what I have heard, this matters on what you are going to be using your computer for. The times where the speed will truly benefit you is if you're copying huge files. (keep in mind that if you are copying them from another device, you are going to bottlenecked at the other device's speed). 

 

In my opinion, having a solid state drive... They are reliable, so you shouldn't worry about one of them dying and corrupting all your data. 

When I asked this question in the past, people said that having a RAID 0 will slow down "random" writes. I'm not sure what "random" means, but I'm assuming it's just smaller sized files. (but then again, if the files are smaller, who cares)

 

In my personal opinion, I would just use two drives.

For one, it would save me the 9 dollars...

For two, installing one drive is a lot easier on cable management and other case things for me as opposed to two drives. 

 

I don't think that you would find there's much of a difference, to be honest. 

[Antistatic12]

IMHO Single drive.

Been there done that (raiding SSD's). I didn't see any real speed difference for every day use/ games/ os. I have come to the conclusion actually raid slowed down my boot times.IDK how, still drives me nuts thinking about it. could just have been some glitch but. wouldn't go under 40seconds.

Raid with SSD's is only:

1. Benching 
2. E-peen
3. Crazy heavy use of big files you need moved quickly. servers or super high end editing rig.

I imagine you looking at the Samsung 1TB EVO SSD. you won't be disappointed, it is a great choice.

[ForsakenLive]

I hate dealing with sata power cables, 1 drive is easier and safer.

[IdeaStormer]

Never add unnecessary points of failure.

 

One drive to rule them all.

 

By that theory, Buy a one core CPU, any more cores and you have that many more failure points. SLI/CrossFire, more failure points so one card. Over Clock, never, multiplies everything by 2 in failure points because everything will be more stressed even a fan will have more cooling to deal with.

 

If you are afraid of tech, yea one drive, one core CPU, one Video Card, no overclocking. Minimize your failure points.

 

If you think tech is to make you life easier, faster, better than the other guy, you know how to extract every ounce of performance for your benefit and you're not afraid of it  then by all means RAID 0 to no end.

 

In conclusion, you need to back up a RAID 0 array as much as you need to backup a single drive system, SSD or HDD. One drive dies in ether and you lose the data. Yes, you can try to recover but if you backup its just less painful, assuming you know how to restore and have verified your backups are working as I have seen some say I have it backed up and when they try to restore they realize they only have the OS backup or some insignificant data but not the critical data.

[MassiveOni]

if they are new ssd's then just a single drive, if you are going to use old ssd's, then i would raid them, ive got 2 old biwin 240gb ssd's, and ive got them in raid0

[Entropy]

By that theory, Buy a one core CPU, any more cores and you have that many more failure points. SLI/CrossFire, more failure points so one card. Over Clock, never, multiplies everything by 2 in failure points because everything will be more stressed even a fan will have more cooling to deal with.

 

If you are afraid of tech, yea one drive, one core CPU, one Video Card, no overclocking. Minimize your failure points.

 

If you think tech is to make you life easier, faster, better than the other guy, you know how to extract every ounce of performance for your benefit and you're not afraid of it  then by all means RAID 0 to no end.

 

In conclusion, you need to back up a RAID 0 array as much as you need to backup a single drive system, SSD or HDD. One drive dies in ether and you lose the data. Yes, you can try to recover but if you backup its just less painful, assuming you know how to restore and have verified your backups are working as I have seen some say I have it backed up and when they try to restore they realize they only have the OS backup or some insignificant data but not the critical data.

>Unnecessary

 

If the guy absolutely wants to have the best, then he can go for it. He won't be likely to notice the difference, but he can. Multi-core CPUs are still one point of failure, though, and they are necessary.

 

Your analogy would work, if the person was actually horrified by anything failing.

[Real_PhillBert]

>Unnecessary

 

If the guy absolutely wants to have the best, then he can go for it. He won't be likely to notice the difference, but he can. Multi-core CPUs are still one point of failure, though, and they are necessary.

 

Your analogy would work, if the person was actually horrified by anything failing.

 

So back up a second. You are saying that the OP can have the best performance, for cheaper, and is still not worried about reliability?

 

Why would you not do a RAID0 array? 

[Entropy]

So back up a second. You are saying that the OP can have the best performance, for cheaper, and is still not worried about reliability?

 

Why would you not do a RAID0 array? 

Do what you want with yer' money, but I would rather have a single drive, reducing the chance of a failure in my system. 

[Real_PhillBert]

Do what you want with yer' money, but I would rather have a single drive, reducing the chance of a failure in my system. 

 

That's just fine. I am just pointing out that current SSD's are pretty reliable, in fact extremely reliable. So when raid becomes the cheaper alternative to a single larger drive, I am out of reasons to oppose it.

 

That said I use a single SSD in my machine.

[IdeaStormer]

That's just fine. I am just pointing out that current SSD's are pretty reliable, in fact extremely reliable.

 

SSD's and HDD's are pretty darn reliable, most supposed failures I have personally seen have had some circumstance like the computer overheated for an extended amount of time, something shorted or the laptop was dropped, not that it just died in the computer. Sure an old one but nothing new out of the box.

[IdeaStormer]

>Unnecessary

 

If the guy absolutely wants to have the best, then he can go for it. He won't be likely to notice the difference, but he can. Multi-core CPUs are still one point of failure, though, and they are necessary.

 

Your analogy would work, if the person was actually horrified by anything failing.

 

Like this guy?

 

Never add unnecessary points of failure.

 

One drive to rule them all.

[Entropy]

Like this guy?

I'm stating that a RAID 0-ing SSDs is not necessary. Why is this an issue?

[brob]

So I can go two 512GB SSD's and put them in RAID 0 ( I love performance whether benchmarks or real world ) or I could go with a single 1TB SSD. The single 1TB is like $9 more than RAID.

 

In fact there are real world conditions under which RAID 0 ssd perform worse than a single, larger ssd. See http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html. For real world performance go with the 1TB ssd. Not only will it provide better performance but it also has a slightly smaller chance of failure.

[Real_PhillBert]

SSD's and HDD's are pretty darn reliable, most supposed failures I have personally seen have had some circumstance like the computer overheated for an extended amount of time, something shorted or the laptop was dropped, not that it just died in the computer. Sure an old one but nothing new out of the box.

 

Exactly, I have really stopped worrying about SSD's at this point. There have been many torture tests done on just about all the SSD's on the market. I have seen a couple of tests where 250 gb SSD's made it to over a PB of writes before having any issues. My likely hood of writing 1024 TB on a 250 GB SSD are pretty dang low.

[brob]

SSD's and HDD's are pretty darn reliable, most supposed failures I have personally seen have had some circumstance like the computer overheated for an extended amount of time, something shorted or the laptop was dropped, not that it just died in the computer. Sure an old one but nothing new out of the box.

 

The physical units are reliable but RAID 0 arrays have a fragility unrelated to the the drives involved. Something as simple as a BIOS update or reset can break an array.

[IdeaStormer]

The physical units are reliable but RAID 0 arrays have a fragility unrelated to the the drives involved. Something as simple as a BIOS update or reset can break an array.

 

Wow... :rolleyes:

 

The boogy man infiltrates non-RAID systems so how is that as a comparable scare tactic, ohhh scary!

 

RAID 0 is probably older than you and there are many many computers out there who in their life have always been in RAID 0. Tech is not scary or composed of scare tactics, understand them don't make them rumor and innuendo's.

[brob]

Wow... :rolleyes:

 

The boogy man infiltrates non-RAID systems so how is that as a comparable scare tactic, ohhh scary!

 

RAID 0 is probably older than you and there are many many computers out there who in their life have always been in RAID 0. Tech is not scary or composed of scare tactics, understand them don't make them rumor and innuendo's.

 

It is an indisputable fact that a RAID 0 array is more fragile than a stand alone drive.

 

This is not a boogy man, simply fact. Mentioning the fact is not a scare tactic. It is meant to insure that readers appreciate the higher risk of using RAID 0 so they can implement appropriate mitigation protocols should they decide to use the technique.

[wpirobotbuilder]

If you have to RAID an SSD, RAID 1 is the way to go. Easy upgrades by removing one drive, replacing it with a larger drive, then replacing the other drive, no cloning involved.

 

RAID 6 is my favorite for SSDs, as long as the RAID controller is fast enough and is compatible with the drives.