Are 2 smaller SSDs worse than 1 large one?

[EricSartor]

I've got a 500GB Samsung 850-EVO, and I was thinking of grabbing some more storage...but then I had a thought.  Should I get another 500GB, or get a 1TB, and keep the original 500GB as a spare?  Would keeping all my data on one SSD offer much of an advantage over spreading it across two?  Obviously just getting another 500GB would be more cost effective, but if there would be noticeable performance gains by keeping everything on one drive, I would certainly consider getting the 1TB...thoughts?

[Carlos1010]

Well it is true that the bigger the SSD the faster it is, especially when getting a 1TB model. It all comes to your preference and price. If you need more storage and don't think about price the 1TB would be fine. I suggest getting a smaller size but faster SSD if you have the price, you can get one of the Intel PCIE NVME SSD. Always keep in mind if you get another 500GB one, you can put both in RAID 0 to get double the read and write but only the storage of 1. 

[flying dutchman]

You can put the two SSD's in raid and get double the read/write speeds but I think you need like a special pci card or a special motherboard

[Carlos1010]

3 minutes ago, flying dutchman said:

You can put the two SSD's in raid and get double the read/write speeds but I think you need like a special pci card or a special motherboard

RAID in not tied to PCIE, it is all about the motherboard and the drives. (Almost all drives are already compatible with RAID)

[gazabi]

16 minutes ago, EricSartor said:

I've got a 500GB Samsung 850-EVO, and I was thinking of grabbing some more storage...but then I had a thought.  Should I get another 500GB, or get a 1TB, and keep the original 500GB as a spare?  Would keeping all my data on one SSD offer much of an advantage over spreading it across two?  Obviously just getting another 500GB would be more cost effective, but if there would be noticeable performance gains by keeping everything on one drive, I would certainly consider getting the 1TB...thoughts?

I think you should get another 500gb drive and put them in raid 0, this will use the space of both drives (total 1000gb) and writes to both drives at the same time essentially doubling read and write speeds. You can use a 1tb drive and a 500gb drive but the total storage will be seen as 1000gb not 1.5 tb since raid will use the highest common capacity, which in this case is 500. The only downside is that raid 0 has no redundancy, so if one drive fails, neither will function and the data will be lost, so use it for things that can be gotten again like  programs. So to recap I think you should get another 500gb drive.

[BlargKing]

Yeah if you got another 500GB you could put them in RAID 0 as stated above. I had two of those exact SSDs in a laptop with 2 HDD slots and when I configured them in RAID 0 I got about 800 MB/s read and 650-700 MB/s write. And that was with a laptop. Just make sure to backup your data frequently. SSDs are reliable but they can still fail and if just 1 drive in a RAID 0 fails you lose the whole array. 

[EricSartor]

9 minutes ago, Carlos1010 said:

RAID in not tied to PCIE, it is all about the motherboard and the drives. (Almost all drives are already compatible with RAID)

I believe the motherboard this would be used with doesn't even support RAID.  I know nothing about RAID though, I could be wrong... https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/bwcMnQ/msi-motherboard-b150igamingproac

 

I had no idea that's what RAID did, that's crazy.  In a gaming environment, is that only going to affect load times?  Or would that impact gameplay as well?

 

I also didn't know the size of an SSD effected speeds either...if that's the case, I may as well go for the 1TB!

[gazabi]

2 minutes ago, EricSartor said:

I believe the motherboard this would be used with doesn't even support RAID.  I know nothing about RAID though, I could be wrong... https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/bwcMnQ/msi-motherboard-b150igamingproac

 

I had no idea that's what RAID did, that's crazy.  In a gaming environment, is that only going to affect load times?  Or would that impact gameplay as well?

 

I also didn't know the size of an SSD effected speeds either...if that's the case, I may as well go for the 1TB!

Ya the board doesn't support, and the size doesn't necessarily correlate to speed, most regulars ssds top out at 600mb/s read and 500mb/s write. But I would go with the 1tb in this case.

[EricSartor]

Just now, gazabi said:

Ya the board doesn't support, and the size doesn't necessarily correlate to speed, most regulars ssds top out at 600mb/s read and 500mb/s write. But I would go with the 1tb in this case.

If it was worth it, I could swap out for a RAID compatible mobo if it would have noticeable effects on gaming.  This would be for a yet to be built PC, I'm still in the planning stages.  Problem is I'm not sure I can comfortably fit more than 2 drives in the case I'm building in, so if I had 2 drives in RAID 0 only yielding 500GB effective storage space, that wouldn't be enough...I also do audio production, which in my current comp I have a third HDD for.  But I guess I could use an external drive for that...

[KuJoe]

Avoid FakeRAID (onboard RAID) at all costs. It's just horrible in every aspect and should only be used in very rare cases where you're unable to do software or hardware RAID. Software RAID is the cheapest and easiest option, hardware RAID is the best option but is most expensive. Let's explore different scenarios:

 

2x500GB SSD RAID0:

• Faster performance.
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage on a single partition
• Higher risk of data loss (if one drive dies you lose everything so you've doubled your risk of data loss)
• If your data is not important and performance/storage is then this is your best option

2x500GB SSD no RAID

• Not as fast as RAID0 (but they're still SSDs so you'll be happy with the performance)
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage across two partitions (so you can only save 500GB on one and 500GB on the other so you can't have a single file of 501GB)
• Lower risk of data loss (if one drive dies you only lost the data on that drive so you've halved your risk of data loss)
• If you want a lower risk solution with possible data recovery on a drive failure then this is your best option.

1x1TB SSD

• Not as fast as RAID0 (but they're still SSDs so you'll be happy with the performance)
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage on a single partition
• Normal risk of data loss (if the drive dies you lose everything)
• If you're fine taking the normal risk associated with your current PC then stick with a single drive solution.

And because I'm having fun with this...

 

2x1TB SSD RAID1

• Slower than no RAID (but they're still SSDs so you'll be happy with the performance)
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage on a single partition
• Lowest risk of data loss (if one drive dies you still have all of your data)
• If you don't want to take risks with your data then this is the ideal solution.

Now if you want a cost effective solution I would recommend looking into protected/redundant (i.e. RAIDed) network storage for your audio production work and other important data.

 

Regardless which route you go, ALWAYS TAKE BACKUPS OF YOUR IMPORTANT DATA YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE!

 

[EricSartor]

35 minutes ago, gazabi said:

not sure why, the reply box won't let me get rid of this quote...ignore this...

[EricSartor]

5 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

Avoid FakeRAID (onboard RAID) at all costs. It's just horrible in every aspect and should only be used in very rare cases where you're unable to do software or hardware RAID. Software RAID is the cheapest and easiest option, hardware RAID is the best option but is most expensive. Let's explore different scenarios:

 

2x500GB SSD RAID0:

• Faster performance.
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage on a single partition
• Higher risk of data loss (if one drive dies you lose everything so you've doubled your risk of data loss)
• If your data is not important and performance/storage is then this is your best option

2x500GB SSD no RAID

• Not as fast as RAID0 (but they're still SSDs so you'll be happy with the performance)
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage across two partitions (so you can only save 500GB on one and 500GB on the other so you can't have a single file of 501GB)
• Lower risk of data loss (if one drive dies you only lost the data on that drive so you've halved your risk of data loss)
• If you want a lower risk solution with possible data recovery on a drive failure then this is your best option.

1x1TB SSD

• Not as fast as RAID0 (but they're still SSDs so you'll be happy with the performance)
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage on a single partition
• Normal risk of data loss (if the drive dies you lose everything)
• If you're fine taking the normal risk associated with your current PC then stick with a single drive solution.

And because I'm having fun with this...

 

2x1TB SSD RAID1

• Slower than no RAID (but they're still SSDs so you'll be happy with the performance)
• 1000GB (theoretical) storage on a single partition
• Lowest risk of data loss (if one drive dies you still have all of your data)
• If you don't want to take risks with your data then this is the ideal solution.

Now if you want a cost effective solution I would recommend looking into protected/redundant (i.e. RAIDed) network storage for your audio production work and other important data.

 

Regardless which route you go, ALWAYS TAKE BACKUPS OF YOUR IMPORTANT DATA YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE!

 

That's some useful information.  Thank you!  It seems to me that two 500s in RAID 0 sounds pretty slick.  I can always back up important stuff to an external drive.  Looks like I need to switch to a RAID compatible Mini ITX mobo...

[EricSartor]

41 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

The perf difference beyond 500GB is usually only minor. I would avoid RAID0 due to risk of complete data loss.

 

Its fine if used as separate drives, but require some management to balance the load due to how SSDs slow down as they get filled up.

 

Also with two drives takes up more space, ports and cabling. I would rather have a single 1TB drive for convenience sake. 

Well having the 1TB would be the same as the 500GBs in RAID 0 as far as data loss.  I also have very little important files, which I can back up to an external drive.   It seems to me the performance benefit of RAID 0 would be worth it, and it would be cheaper as I already have one 500GB I can salvage from my current PC.  But in a small case, extra cables could be worth considering...

[Carlos1010]

5 hours ago, EricSartor said:

Well having the 1TB would be the same as the 500GBs in RAID 0 as far as data loss.  I also have very little important files, which I can back up to an external drive.   It seems to me the performance benefit of RAID 0 would be worth it, and it would be cheaper as I already have one 500GB I can salvage from my current PC.  But in a small case, extra cables could be worth considering...

Linus has a couple of videos explaining all the RAID types, I highly recommend you watching it.

[EricSartor]

5 hours ago, Carlos1010 said:

Linus has a couple of videos explaining all the RAID types, I highly recommend you watching it.

I did actually, very informative, and now I'm fairly confident that I'm going to be using RAID 0.  I've switched out my mobo to accommodate.

[Captain_WD]

On 12.09.2016 г. at 8:37 AM, EricSartor said:

~snip~

Hi

 

@KuJoe did a great summary of all pro-s and con-s of your choice. 

If you don't really need the speed boost of a RAID array I would simply go with two separate drives in order not to have all your eggs in a single basket in case the drive fails. Although a single larger drive would perform somewhat faster compared to a smaller drive, you are not very likely to feel it unless you are doing extensive workloads that are storage-demanding. 

 

Mind that RAID0 boost the performance of the sequential read/write speeds while it has little effect on the random ones. I'd first check what type of things are ran on the system and if they use more sequential or random speeds. 

 

Let me know if you need more info on this

 

Captain_WD. 

[EricSartor]

1 minute ago, Captain_WD said:

Hi

 

@KuJoe did a great summary of all pro-s and con-s of your choice. 

If you don't really need the speed boost of a RAID array I would simply go with two separate drives in order not to have all your eggs in a single basket in case the drive fails. Although a single larger drive would perform somewhat faster compared to a smaller drive, you are not very likely to feel it unless you are doing extensive workloads that are storage-demanding. 

 

Mind that RAID0 boost the performance of the sequential read/write speeds while it has little effect on the random ones. I'd first check what type of things are ran on the system and if they use more sequential or random speeds. 

 

Let me know if you need more info on this

 

Captain_WD. 

Would load times in loading intensive games like Fallout 4, Skyrim, etc. see much benefit with a RAID 0 arrangement?

[KuJoe]

1 minute ago, EricSartor said:

Would load times in loading intensive games like Fallout 4, Skyrim, etc. see much benefit with a RAID 0 arrangement?

I have 2 SSDs in RAID0 and see no noticeable change in load times compared to a single SSD.

[EricSartor]

Just now, KuJoe said:

I have 2 SSDs in RAID0 and see no noticeable change in load times compared to a single SSD.

Well there's goes my logic for RAID 0...still, it's cheaper to grab the 500GB and and pair it with my current 500GB, I'd rather lose one of those than a solitary 1TB!

[Captain_WD]

29 minutes ago, EricSartor said:

~snip~

Some games can benefit a bit from a RAID0's performance for their initial loading times but it depends from a game to a game if it will and how much. Basically I don't believe you would see a significant increase that's worth the increased risk of data lost and drive failures. 

 

Captain_WD.

[EricSartor]

1 minute ago, Captain_WD said:

Some games can benefit a bit from a RAID0's performance for their initial loading times but it depends from a game to a game if it will and how much. Basically I don't believe you would see a significant increase that's worth the increased risk of data lost and drive failures. 

 

Captain_WD.

Fair point.  I have learned much from this thread :'D