RAID 5 HDD vs 512gb SSD

[pitprok]

So im looking at two builds that cost exactly the same

4 x WESTERN DIGITAL WD10EZEX 1TB CAVIAR BLUE SATA3 running at raid 5 (i calculated that it will have 3T of space with read 450mb/s and write 150mb/s or lower)
 

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771436.pdf

vs


1 x Crucial M550 512GB 2.5'' SSD  (read 550 mb/s , write 500 mb/s)

or 2 x Crucial M550 256GB 2,5" SSD (read/write ~1000mb/s)

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/storage-ssd-m550



What are your thoughts ?

edit: Third option could be Raid 10 with the WD resulting in 2TB space with read 6000 mb/s and write 300 mb/s)

[elkenrod]

1 x Crucial M550 256 GB 2.5" SSD

 

and then as much HDD storage as the rest of your budget allows.

[Humbug]

You will never come close to the speed and responsiveness of SSDs with any raid config of HDDs even if you get big numbers on benchmarks of sequential performance. The seek time on SSDs is almost zero.

[simtransporter]

For an OS drive I would stick with SSDs as opposed to a hdd raid config.

[pitprok]

1 x Crucial M550 256 GB 2.5" SSD

 

and then as much HDD storage as the rest of your budget allows.

 

 

You will never come close to the speed and responsiveness of SSDs with any raid config of HDDs even if you get big numbers on benchmarks of sequential performance. The seek time on SSDs is almost zero.

 

 

For an OS drive I would stick with SSDs as opposed to a hdd raid config.

In that case, how about 1 x 256gb SSD for OS and 2 x 1 TB WD Blue in a raid 0 setup ?

[simtransporter]

In that case, how about 1 x 256gb SSD for OS and 2 x 1 TB WD Blue in a raid 0 setup ?

That sounds pretty good performance wise, just as long as you realise the risks involved with raid 0. You might want to think about running backups if you're planning on storing any important data on the array.

Raid 10 would be a safer, but at the end of the day it's really up to you and if you are willing to sacrifise redundancy for performance or not.

[pitprok]

That sounds pretty good performance wise, just as long as you realise the risks involved with raid 0. You might want to think about running backups if you're planning on storing any important data on the array.

Already running 1 x 1TB + 1 x 2TB external disk backups, one of which isnt even in my house, i update it via a 2.0 128GB usb drive

[simtransporter]

Already running 1 x 1TB + 1 x 2TB external disk backups, one of which isnt even in my house, i update it via a 2.0 128GB usb drive

nice.

[Captain_WD]

So im looking at two builds that cost exactly the same

4 x WESTERN DIGITAL WD10EZEX 1TB CAVIAR BLUE SATA3 running at raid 5 (i calculated that it will have 3T of space with read 450mb/s and write 150mb/s or lower)

 

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771436.pdf

vs

1 x Crucial M550 512GB 2.5'' SSD  (read 550 mb/s , write 500 mb/s)

or 2 x Crucial M550 256GB 2,5" SSD (read/write ~1000mb/s)

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/storage-ssd-m550

What are your thoughts ?

edit: Third option could be Raid 10 with the WD resulting in 2TB space with read 6000 mb/s and write 300 mb/s)

 

 

Hey pitprok,

 

A SSD would be significantly faster than any regular HDD in a RAID setup (unless you push a lot of HDDs in striping mode, increasing the risk significantly). Another problem would be that WD Blue is not designed for RAID arrays and this might result in drive drop-outs, data corruption or data loss. I would recommend using NAS/RAID class drives for RAID environments as they have additional features in their firmware and tuning that enable them to work better and safer in such environments. WD Red is such a drive. Here's a link: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=7woiFF

 

With RAID5 and RAID10 the read/write speeds are very uncertain as it heavily depends on the data and the way it is being read or written. You can roughly say that for writing with RAID10 you can take the speed of the slowest drive and multiply it by 2. For RAID5 it would be the same but there will be loss of speed and time to write due to the calculation of the redundancy that RAID5 offers. 

Read speeds depend heavily on the way data is stored and used. 

 

Captain_WD.

[pitprok]

 

Hey pitprok,

 

A SSD would be significantly faster than any regular HDD in a RAID setup (unless you push a lot of HDDs in striping mode, increasing the risk significantly). Another problem would be that WD Blue is not designed for RAID arrays and this might result in drive drop-outs, data corruption or data loss. I would recommend using NAS/RAID class drives for RAID environments as they have additional features in their firmware and tuning that enable them to work better and safer in such environments. WD Red is such a drive. Here's a link: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=7woiFF

 

With RAID5 and RAID10 the read/write speeds are very uncertain as it heavily depends on the data and the way it is being read or written. You can roughly say that for writing with RAID10 you can take the speed of the slowest drive and multiply it by 2. For RAID5 it would be the same but there will be loss of speed and time to write due to the calculation of the redundancy that RAID5 offers. 

Read speeds depend heavily on the way data is stored and used. 

 

Captain_WD.

 

Thanks, i think ill get a 256gb ssd with a 3TB red (it was either that or 2 x 1TB WD BLUE in raid 0 but i figure the 1TB space is worth more than the speed boost the raid 0 is going to give me )