2 small SSDs or 1 large SSD

[SoulEater]

Okay so a couple days ago my 480gb Mushkin Eco2 SSD failed but it's still under warranty so its not a big deal since no important information was ever kept on it. They unfortunately no longer make that specific drive anymore (I suspect because of failure rates =p) so they are going to "upgraded" me to the 512gb version in the series. 

In the attached image you can see that the 512gb version is a significant downgrade in write speeds ,however. So I was wondering if it would be worth it to just ask if they would be willing to send two of the 240gb drives as a replacement instead, seeing as how they would appear to be an all around improvement. 

[SlipperyPete]

do it. then you could raid 0 and get insane speeds and if you dont want to raid than you still have better speeds

 

[SlipperyPete]

4 minutes ago, SoulEater said:

Okay so a couple days ago my 480gb Mushkin Eco2 SSD failed but it's still under warranty so its not a big deal since no important information was ever kept on it. They unfortunately no longer make that specific drive anymore (I suspect because of failure rates =p) so they "upgraded" me to the 512gb version in the series. 

In the attached image you can see that the 512gb version is a significant downgrade in write speeds ,however. So I was wondering if it would be worth it to just ask if they would be willing to send two of the 240gb drives as a replacement instead, seeing as how they would appear to be an all around improvement. 

 

[killRMODZ]

Raid 0 FTW.

[Moonzy]

just get the 500gb... you probably will never notice the difference in write speed unless you do a lot of files transfers among SSDs or RAM

 

and i suggest against RAID any day

[SlipperyPete]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

and i suggest against RAID any day

not trying to argue... just curious may i ask why

 

[Moonzy]

2 minutes ago, SlipperyPete said:

not trying to argue... just curious may i ask why

because reliability, for raid 0

 

the performance gain is hardly noticeable unless you access the drives often

[EarthboundHero]

2 minutes ago, SlipperyPete said:

not trying to argue... just curious may i ask why

 

RAID 0 is dangerous. If one dies, you lose all the data on both drives. It also requires more physical space and will limit future upgrades. 

[SlipperyPete]

Just now, EarthboundHero said:

RAID 0 is dangerous. If one dies, you lose all the data on both drives. It also requires more physical space and will limit future upgrades. 

huh.... thanks i was not aware of the data loss... never done it myself thanks though  

[SlipperyPete]

2 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

because reliability, for raid 0

 

the performance gain is hardly noticeable unless you access the drives often

thanks for the response thats a good point

[Jer45]

15 minutes ago, SlipperyPete said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

because reliability, for raid 0

 

the performance gain is hardly noticeable unless you access the drives often

 

3 minutes ago, EarthboundHero said:

RAID 0 is dangerous. If one dies, you lose all the data on both drives. It also requires more physical space and will limit future upgrades. 

 

8 minutes ago, killRMODZ said:

Raid 0 FTW.

I only like to use raid for large HDDs in raid 1! that is the only raid i use

raid 1 mirrors the data on the drives so you have 2 copies

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, SlipperyPete said:

not trying to argue... just curious may i ask why

 

the thing you increase with raid 0 is sequential speeds which will matter if you are transferring large files constantly but it doesnt affect random iops as much so there is little benefit to how fast your computer can do tasks

[SoulEater]

2 minutes ago, EarthboundHero said:

RAID 0 is dangerous. If one dies, you lose all the data on both drives. It also requires more physical space and will limit future upgrades. 

In my situation neither the risk factor nor the physical space are an issue. If one of the drives fails then it would be the same to me as if the one larger one failed. But I do see how that would be a turn off.

[EarthboundHero]

1 minute ago, SoulEater said:

In my situation neither the risk factor nor the physical space are an issue. If one of the drives fails then it would be the same to me as if the one larger one failed. But I do see how that would be a turn off.

The thing is there's more points of failure, thus a higher chance of failure than a single drive.

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, Jer45 said:

I only like to use raid for large HDDs in raid 1! that is the only raid i use

imo RAID 1 is good for reliability

but i rather backup my data weekly or monthly, and unplug the hard disk (preferably external)

 

because RAID 1 doesnt save you from viruses or encryption malwares

 

i only recommend RAID1 to people working on important client files that cannot be tolerated if its lost (like professional photographer or video editor)

[Moonzy]

3 minutes ago, SoulEater said:

In my situation neither the risk factor nor the physical space are an issue. If one of the drives fails then it would be the same to me as if the one larger one failed. But I do see how that would be a turn off.

you're more than doubling the chance of data lost by going to RAID 0

since the RAID array puts more stress on the drives than if they were to work individually

[SoulEater]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

the thing you increase with raid 0 is sequential speeds which will matter if you are transferring large files constantly but it doesnt affect random iops as much so there is little benefit to how fast your computer can do tasks

I don't transfer large files "constantly" but I still do quite often.

2 minutes ago, EarthboundHero said:

The thing is there's more points of failure, thus a higher chance of failure than a single drive.

Yeah I see what you mean now.

[killRMODZ]

SoulEater, what is your intended use?  Relating to performance, get 2 and raid 0 them.  You should not be saving or archiving data on raid 0 drives anyways.  If for general use, just get the 500 and call it a day.

[mad dudy]

get two 240gb drives, if one fails maybe they would offer a 512gb to replace it.