SSD vs RAID 0 HDD

[FaZeFuhrer]

Some may say that mechanical hard drives are slow and if you want fast data you need ssd's

 

i have been wondering for a while if ssd's can be surpassed in speed if you only have sata available even sata 6gbps is the bottleneck for new sata drives. Raid comes to mind with ssd's for more speed but, how many hard drives equal the speed of a decent ssd (in this case an 120gb intel 535 series) I used a supermicro duel socket motherboard with 2 6 core xeons and 80gb ram so i wouldnt have any hardware bottlenecks. i ran crystal disk mark on the ssd and 4 seagate baracuda 3.5" 1tb hard drives. as you can see in the attached pictures the ssd got its but kicked by 4tb of inexpensive storage. some may say that if one hdd dies you are out of your data in a raid 0 but if your ssd dies than you are also out of luck. 

[TrigrH]

in seq? it only takes a few.

 

but seq isn't whats important here, its the small file performance and no real "seek" times that hard drives are bad at.

[DisconnectedYT]

On 5/9/2016 at 11:37 AM, FaZeFuhrer said:

Some may say that mechanical hard drives are slow and if you want fast data you need ssd's

 

i have been wondering for a while if ssd's can be surpassed in speed if you only have sata available even sata 6gbps is the bottleneck for new sata drives. Raid comes to mind with ssd's for more speed but, how many hard drives equal the speed of a decent ssd (in this case an 120gb intel 535 series) I used a supermicro duel socket motherboard with 2 6 core xeons and 80gb ram so i wouldnt have any hardware bottlenecks. i ran crystal disk mark on the ssd and 4 seagate baracuda 3.5" 1tb hard drives. as you can see in the attached pictures the ssd got its but kicked by 4tb of inexpensive storage. some may say that if one hdd dies you are out of your data in a raid 0 but if your ssd dies than you are also out of luck. 

I have a SSD and a Raid 0 array and i would tell u which is better BUT MY RAID CARD IS F****** DEAD!

[HPWebcamAble]

6 minutes ago, FrozenSpark said:

I have a SSD and a Raid 0 array and i would tell u which is better BUT MY RAID CARD IS F****** DEAD!

And that, kids, is why we don't use RAID 0 for important data

[FaZeFuhrer]

yes. that is why you always use raid 0 and full amd computers with stock coolers for storing your important data because amd computers never crash

[FaZeFuhrer]

lol amd sucks

[FaZeFuhrer]

that is why i use server/ workstation motherboards, xeon processors, and ecc ram so i never get blue screens. 

[scottyseng]

Ah, if you're looking at purely sequential results, you'd be right, you'd probably need three hard drives (Depends on the size though, 4TB+ drives are faster than smaller drives) to match a SSD in RAID0. I have six 4TB WD Reds in RAID10 and get roughly the same speeds as your RAID array. My other array with four SAS WD Re Drives in RAID10 gets around (350 MB/s)

 

Your SSD there seems to be running really slow...it's not what I would consider decent by today's standard. My old M500 is faster than that (450MB/s read/write). My Sandisk Extreme Pro and Extreme 2 get around 550MB/s (read/write). The standard of today is usually the Samsung 850 evo.

 

However, the SSD would crush the array in random speeds and seek time, which is more important for programs.

 

Another factor is how much cache the RAID card has and what mode it's running in. A hardware RAID card with a battery is able to use the cache and so small files get a large boost as they stay on the RAID card's RAM cache.

 

Finally, keep cost in mind. Four 1TB drives costs more than a decent SSD by today's standards (Though the hard drives would give more space).

 

[FaZeFuhrer]

i think my ssd is running slow because i only have sata 2 on my server motherboard