Report: SSDs Rapidly Dropping in Price !!! - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 44 Old 10-29-2012, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I stay away from RAID0 whenever possible...it doubles your chances of losing everything.

You assume everyone cares if they lose anything.

Personally in my desktop I do not. Everything important is stored on my server with FLEXRAID so the chance of losing anything on my desktop is not a factor. Plus my system auto backs up and I could restore an image if needed or whatever.


So bottom line is- for me RAID0 is a very good option since I value the increased performance much more than the increased reliability concerns.

Personally I'd rather have my PC blazing fast- and watch it blow up than I would want to tolerate a very reliable slow machine. If your geeky and like this stuff and nothing critical is being lost- the performance outweighs the reliability concern.

My experience with anyone who makes comments like this is they are not fully evolved in their own personal back up systems and just assume that everyone else is as equally inadequate.

RAID0 can provide a nice benefit in performance if used properly. Saying that it decreases reliability seems ignorant to me as it suggests that the back up solution being applied is simply not using RAID0 and taking chances with the non RAID0 standard drive set up and individual drive failure chance.

If someone really cared about security or reliability there would be a better option than just taking a chance on a single drive. Someone who's back up plan is this has no right suggest RAID0 is a poor choice for reliability concerns, as most advanced users with RAID0 set up's will have both higher performance and higher level of reliability and security with a more appropriate back up/reliability solution.

I've run lots of RAID0 arrays and never lost a drive or data, and I have also lost single drives many times. The only solution for the chance of lost data from a lost drive in a RAID0 array is the same exact solution you should employ in a single non RAID drive set up. Simply not going with RAID0 over reliability concerns is a pretty noob approach IMO.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 44 Old 10-29-2012, 08:47 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Just providing info about the risks involved with striping and my personal avoidance of it. That said, RAID0 exists as an option for people who are not risk adverse (or have backups to mitigate it) like you. That is one of the wonderful things about RAID...there are so many versions to choose from, everyone can be kept happy. smile.gif

I do have to point out this: "I've run lots of RAID0 arrays and never lost a drive or data, and I have also lost single drives many times." You do realize you double the odds of losing the info on your RAID0 array when you use two drives as one big drive instead of only using one drive, right? Since you have lost single drives many times, you should actually consider yourself lucky to have never lost your RAID0 array. I hope your luck continues, but that it all it is, luck. Why not use 8 drives in a huge RAID0 array? Imagine how fast that would be...and how it would be 8 times as likely to fail as a single drive.

Risk is what you make of it. For not too much money, I can go SDD - which makes every HDD RAID0 look like it is standing still. Why even bother with HDD RAID0 any more? Seems a very ghetto approach to speed these days.
cybrsage is offline  
post #33 of 44 Old 10-29-2012, 09:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Just providing info about the risks involved with striping and my personal avoidance of it. That said, RAID0 exists as an option for people who are not risk adverse (or have backups to mitigate it) like you. That is one of the wonderful things about RAID...there are so many versions to choose from, everyone can be kept happy. smile.gif
I do have to point out this: "I've run lots of RAID0 arrays and never lost a drive or data, and I have also lost single drives many times." You do realize you double the odds of losing the info on your RAID0 array when you use two drives as one big drive instead of only using one drive, right? Since you have lost single drives many times, you should actually consider yourself lucky to have never lost your RAID0 array. I hope your luck continues, but that it all it is, luck. Why not use 8 drives in a huge RAID0 array? Imagine how fast that would be...and how it would be 8 times as likely to fail as a single drive.
Risk is what you make of it. For not too much money, I can go SDD - which makes every HDD RAID0 look like it is standing still. Why even bother with HDD RAID0 any more? Seems a very ghetto approach to speed these days.

Actually... if your into movies and stuff like me and copy and past often... a 200MB sec HDD is pretty nice smile.gif

of coarse I use SSD for OS..

How about RAID 0 SSD for OS? If your a geek type that does not mind the set up or risks... it's pretty cool.

It was blazing fast when I did it. 1000mb/sec+ Just totally stupid.. which makes it cool.

I use software RAID these days on my WHS2011 server. Flexraid is nice and makes up for the slower speeds with increased back up solutions and easy of flexible set up.

But in my desktop for a storage drive I do have RAID0 array. It's just two samsung 1TB drives.. nothing amazing. but it's nice having a 2TB RAID 0 drive that copy and paste at 150/mb sec+ consistently when working with blu ray rips and mediamaster..


I rip everything on my PC, adjust the file name, medimaster the folder with metadata and such before copy the final product to my server and adding into the media library the HTPC reads from. I do a lot with box sets and nested folders... movie collections and such and this causes me to copy and paste movie folders often.

If your use to pasting video folders at 80MB sec and suddenly your close to 180MB sec you'll appreciate the speed boost for sure. It's very noticeable.

Your right that the chance of losing the array is greater since you only need one of two drives to fail to lose your data- but if your using it like I do for a temporary storage it's certainly the way to go.

Same on your OS- assuming you can restore/backup or won't lose anything important.

My OS drive never has anything on it that I don't have stored somewhere else if I want to keep it long term- so if my OS drive crashes it's not a big deal at all. It's about an hour of work to fix.

I accept that for the speed boost. It saves me way more than an hour in daily computing time...

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #34 of 44 Old 10-29-2012, 10:06 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
A RAID0 SSD would be amazing! smile.gif
cybrsage is offline  
post #35 of 44 Old 10-29-2012, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Are you talking for SSD and OS or for HDD and storage?

In storage- the 4 x SATAII with RAID0 is no contest faster since the SATAII spec is faster than the HDD anyhow- and adding 4 drives to split the read and writes will be faster than only 2.

In RAID 0 for SSD it's a different story.

If your looking at cheap low end SSD's like an AGILITY for instance- the cheap NAND is limited in bandwidth and can't saturate a SATA II port. That is why they are slower with the same exact controller as a faster TOGGLE NAND device. In this scenario with cheaper SSD's the 4 way will be faster because your not saturating the port and your making up for the limited NAND performance by splitting across more with simultaneous writes/reads.

however- I believe on a faster higher end larger capacity SSD- say two 256GB type- The dual SATA3 drives would be faster. Because a larger faster SSD can saturate the SATAII port.

My guess is that a 512GB SSD RAID 0 array on SATA3 is quite a bit faster than a 512GB 128GBx4 RAID 0 array on SATA II

I think it makes sense to to possibly go with a cheapo 64GB SSD x 4 for a ncie 256GB drive... if you can pick up SSD's for under $50 each it makes the total cost about a 256GB stand alone. But anything beyond cheap SSD's I'd probably just use 2 drives and go the SATA3 route.


Hmm, do several virtual disk images containing various OSes count as data or OS? I think I'll refer to them as data. I plan on using a single 2.5" or mSATA SSD for the host OS. I find throughput on a single SSD even on SATA2 is more than sufficient for that.

Actually, I already have 4x Samsung 830 128GB and 2x Samsung 830 256GB SSDs on hand for testing. Those are the drives I'm planning to benchmark. tongue.gif.

From this chart, the Samsung 830 256GB gets 395MB/s in AS-SSD sequential while the Samsung 830 128GB gets 310MB/s when connected to a SATA3 port. Assuming perfect scaling, theoretical throughput of 2x256GB SATA3 in RAID-0 is around 790MB/s for sequential write. Most SATA3 SSDs I've seen (least the ones that can exceed SATA2 speed) have their sequential performance capped to 230~280MB/s when connected to SATA2. With perfect scaling, that translates to 920-1,120MB/s for a 4-way SATA II RAID-0. Of course, those are just theoretical speeds. That's why I'm planning on running benchmarks to see real world throughput.

For production use, I plan on only using 2x Samsung 830 256GB on SATA3 in RAID-0. Even if the 4-way RAID-0 is faster, I can't really give up the SATA ports. Of the 6 available Intel ports, I'll have 5 in use: 1x OS SSD, 2x RAID-0 data SSD and 2x RAID-1 backup HDD.
ilovejedd is offline  
post #36 of 44 Old 10-30-2012, 11:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Aluminum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post

Hmm, do several virtual disk images containing various OSes count as data or OS? I think I'll refer to them as data. I plan on using a single 2.5" or mSATA SSD for the host OS. I find throughput on a single SSD even on SATA2 is more than sufficient for that.
Actually, I already have 4x Samsung 830 128GB and 2x Samsung 830 256GB SSDs on hand for testing. Those are the drives I'm planning to benchmark. tongue.gif.
From this chart, the Samsung 830 256GB gets 395MB/s in AS-SSD sequential while the Samsung 830 128GB gets 310MB/s when connected to a SATA3 port. Assuming perfect scaling, theoretical throughput of 2x256GB SATA3 in RAID-0 is around 790MB/s for sequential write. Most SATA3 SSDs I've seen (least the ones that can exceed SATA2 speed) have their sequential performance capped to 230~280MB/s when connected to SATA2. With perfect scaling, that translates to 920-1,120MB/s for a 4-way SATA II RAID-0. Of course, those are just theoretical speeds. That's why I'm planning on running benchmarks to see real world throughput.
For production use, I plan on only using 2x Samsung 830 256GB on SATA3 in RAID-0. Even if the 4-way RAID-0 is faster, I can't really give up the SATA ports. Of the 6 available Intel ports, I'll have 5 in use: 1x OS SSD, 2x RAID-0 data SSD and 2x RAID-1 backup HDD.

If you're already spending cash to stripe 4 SSDs you must care about performance, so might as well get a proper adapter instead of being limited by your motherboard smile.gif

LSI 2008 HBA cards are on ebay pretty cheap, 2 SAS2 ports = 8 SATA3 ports. They have a raid ROM option but ideally you use them in IT mode and let the OS do it.

These cards can actually keep up with the full bandwidth of 8 x 6Gbps ports as it is 8 pci-e 2.0, and there are real world cases of >4GB/s which is damned close.
(most people/marketing/articles conveniently forget about the 8b/10b encode overhead, simple version is 6Gbps on the wire = 600MB/s actual data)

Right now you can get one for $75 shipped, a pair of breakout cables at monoprice is $20.


The PCI-e 3.0 cards should get cheaper soon, around $300 for the moment though. One oddball intel card has gone as low as $140, but it might not work in most systems.

Nearly dead silent HTPC ver 2.0: i3-4340 w/ Noctua NH-L9i on Z87E-itx inside CM130 elite, fanless PSU, SSD OS drive
SAN shares via 40GbE tunneled over 56Gb infiniband links
microcenter & ebay = severe risks to my wallet
Aluminum is offline  
post #37 of 44 Old 10-30-2012, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post

Hmm, do several virtual disk images containing various OSes count as data or OS? I think I'll refer to them as data. I plan on using a single 2.5" or mSATA SSD for the host OS. I find throughput on a single SSD even on SATA2 is more than sufficient for that.
Actually, I already have 4x Samsung 830 128GB and 2x Samsung 830 256GB SSDs on hand for testing. Those are the drives I'm planning to benchmark. tongue.gif.
From this chart, the Samsung 830 256GB gets 395MB/s in AS-SSD sequential while the Samsung 830 128GB gets 310MB/s when connected to a SATA3 port. Assuming perfect scaling, theoretical throughput of 2x256GB SATA3 in RAID-0 is around 790MB/s for sequential write. Most SATA3 SSDs I've seen (least the ones that can exceed SATA2 speed) have their sequential performance capped to 230~280MB/s when connected to SATA2. With perfect scaling, that translates to 920-1,120MB/s for a 4-way SATA II RAID-0. Of course, those are just theoretical speeds. That's why I'm planning on running benchmarks to see real world throughput.
For production use, I plan on only using 2x Samsung 830 256GB on SATA3 in RAID-0. Even if the 4-way RAID-0 is faster, I can't really give up the SATA ports. Of the 6 available Intel ports, I'll have 5 in use: 1x OS SSD, 2x RAID-0 data SSD and 2x RAID-1 backup HDD.

My experience has been that two larger SSD's in RAID0 are faster than 4 smaller SSD's in RAID0 on Sata II. I assumed the RAID controller just topped out...

It's not hard to hit 1000MB/sec with two larger sized quality SSD's in RAID 0 on SATA 3. I've done it with two OCZ 120GB's. I'm assuming you can hit that with 256GB Samsung 830's too..

64GB SSD's show the fastest percentage increase- but only because they are the slowest to start off. You essentially have a RAID controller inside every SSD, that splits the data to the different NAND chips inside. More NAND chips in larger SSD's means the reads/writes are split over more and thus the speed of the actual chips inside becomes less of an issue. My experience has taught me that 64GB SSD's and SSD's that have a cheaper or fewer NAND inside respond pretty well since your removing the bottle neck of how fast the NAND can perform when you add more drives and split the data across more simultaneous.

The 64GB/128GB/256GB have essentially the same controllers inside them- so the difference you see in the larger SSD's being faster is just simply the additional NAND providing a boost. The controller is less a limiting factor in smaller SSD's- and can generally outperform the NAND performance.

As you get into the larger and better SSD's your already seeing speeds much faster so the percentage increase is smaller- while the actual performance is still greater. I hope that makes sense.

I think you'll do about 700/MB sec on 4xSATAII and probably 950MB/sec on 2xsata3 with a good SSD.

I wiped clean my Max IOPS (hard clean, hard erase) so the NAND did not need to be deleted before being written- and I hit 1400MB/sec on my first benchmark in RAID0. That was two 120GB SSD's. My 120GB OCZ with toggle nand is probably about the same speed as the Samsung so I assume you can get about the same speeds. Possible a bit more since it's a 256GB- But I think the Marvel controller is a bit slower than the Sandforce when it behaves in RAID 0 so your mileage may vary.

Bottom line is usually in SSD performance the amount of NAND and the quality of NAND is the limiting performance factor that differentiates one SSD from another. In RAID0 and 120GB+ sized drives- the limited factor no longer becomes the NAND and it becomes the controllers. Both the RAID controller and the SSD controller depending on your set up will be your bottle neck.

Of coarse this bottleneck happens at speeds way faster than a normal consumer SSD single drive.



BTW- what exactly are you using this drive for? An OS installation? Virtual disk ?

And- it sounds to me like you would be better off with a PCI based SSD card. They are much faster, easier..... No SSD can touch that speed as PCI Cards have no bottleneck in connection. You speed would be limited to the size /controller and your performance ceiling is comfortably above any SSD on the market today.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #38 of 44 Old 10-30-2012, 03:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum View Post

If you're already spending cash to stripe 4 SSDs you must care about performance, so might as well get a proper adapter instead of being limited by your motherboard smile.gif
LSI 2008 HBA cards are on ebay pretty cheap, 2 SAS2 ports = 8 SATA3 ports. They have a raid ROM option but ideally you use them in IT mode and let the OS do it.
These cards can actually keep up with the full bandwidth of 8 x 6Gbps ports as it is 8 pci-e 2.0, and there are real world cases of >4GB/s which is damned close.
(most people/marketing/articles conveniently forget about the 8b/10b encode overhead, simple version is 6Gbps on the wire = 600MB/s actual data)
Right now you can get one for $75 shipped, a pair of breakout cables at monoprice is $20.
The PCI-e 3.0 cards should get cheaper soon, around $300 for the moment though. One oddball intel card has gone as low as $140, but it might not work in most systems.


Why not just buy a PCI SSD card at this point?

If you have a couple cheap SSD's and you use the integrated RAID controller on the motherboard you can do RAID0 pretty cheap and hit fast speeds.

Beyond this your looking at a PCI card SSD. It's same price and faster.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #39 of 44 Old 10-30-2012, 03:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post


And- it sounds to me like you would be better off with a PCI based SSD card. They are much faster, easier..... No SSD can touch that speed as PCI Cards have no bottleneck in connection. You speed would be limited to the size /controller and your performance ceiling is comfortably above any SSD on the market today.
20-227-764-TS?$S300W$
Quote:
Designed to deliver maximum throughput in multithreaded applications, the new Max IOPS edition is an extension of the industry-leading RevoDrive 3 product line, supporting workstation users that require greater transactional throughput and bandwidth.

The RevoDrive 3 X2 Max IOPS series combines a proven cutting-edge PCI Express architecture and OCZ proprietary Virtualized Controller Architecture (VCA) 2.0 flash virtualization layer with premium NAND flash components to deliver exceptional 4KB random write performance of up to 245,000 IOPS, along with increased transfer rates at 1900MB/s reads and 1725MBs/ writes.

The RevoDrive 3 X2 Max IOPS edition will be available in 240GB to 960GB capacities, providing ample space for data warehousing, applications, multimedia files, and operating systems with the superior durability, energy efficiency, and reliability of SSDs.



At less than $1000 - This is your best option. Your not going to get a consistent speed at these levels with any consumer SSD in RAID0.

Once your spending more than a couple hundred each for an SSD and possibly another few hundred on a RAID controller card for stability- These things for $799 just make sense.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #40 of 44 Old 10-30-2012, 05:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum View Post

If you're already spending cash to stripe 4 SSDs you must care about performance, so might as well get a proper adapter instead of being limited by your motherboard smile.gif

I've already spent the cash on the SSDs. I won't actually be putting the 4x128GB in RAID-0 for production use. They'll only be RAIDed for benchmarking specifically to test motherboard RAID scaling and limitations. The array will then be broken up afterwards. I expect the SSDs will be used as OS drives in various systems or as USB3 externals (they're really great for running portable apps tongue.gif).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

My experience has been that two larger SSD's in RAID0 are faster than 4 smaller SSD's in RAID0 on Sata II. I assumed the RAID controller just topped out...

It's not hard to hit 1000MB/sec with two larger sized quality SSD's in RAID 0 on SATA 3. I've done it with two OCZ 120GB's. I'm assuming you can hit that with 256GB Samsung 830's too..

For sequential reads, yeah, practically all SATA III SSDs hit 1000+MB/s in 2-way RAID-0 or close to it. Aside from the Samsung 840 Pro, though, the SSD controller appears to still be the bottleneck when it comes to sequential writes once you reach higher capacities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

The 64GB/128GB/256GB have essentially the same controllers inside them- so the difference you see in the larger SSD's being faster is just simply the additional NAND providing a boost. The controller is less a limiting factor in smaller SSD's- and can generally outperform the NAND performance.

As you get into the larger and better SSD's your already seeing speeds much faster so the percentage increase is smaller- while the actual performance is still greater. I hope that makes sense.

Well aware of that. However, NAND performance scaling on the various SSD controllers also differ. For some, sequential (writes, in particular) on a 128GB is half that of the 256GB model. For others, the difference is smaller (appears to be around 20-25% for the Samsung 830).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I think you'll do about 700/MB sec on 4xSATAII and probably 950MB/sec on 2xsata3 with a good SSD.

That remains to be seen. It'll be interesting to see what the actual benchmarks will show. So far, 2x Samsung 830 256 SATA III RAID-0 benchmarks I've seen show around 1000+MB/s sequential read and 700-800MB/s sequential write. smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

BTW- what exactly are you using this drive for? An OS installation? Virtual disk ?

Lots of virtual machines. Right now, I only have 3GB RAM (still on 32-bit) and 120GB SSD (VM drive) so I limit it to just 1 or 2 VMs at a time (with Firefox or Chrome running on the host, I keep getting out of memory messages). The new build will have 32GB RAM and the VM storage will be the Samsung 830 256GB x2 in RAID-0 so I expect I'll be able to run a lot more VMs at the same time. smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

And- it sounds to me like you would be better off with a PCI based SSD card. They are much faster, easier..... No SSD can touch that speed as PCI Cards have no bottleneck in connection. You speed would be limited to the size /controller and your performance ceiling is comfortably above any SSD on the market today.

No need. 2x256GB SATA3 RAID-0 provides sufficient capacity and throughput for my requirements. Besides, I've seen way too many complaints about the OCZ RevoDrive to consider getting one and other enterprise options I've seen are just way too pricey (~$2,000 for 400GB).
ilovejedd is offline  
post #41 of 44 Old 11-02-2012, 08:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Aluminum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
At less than $1000 - This is your best option. Your not going to get a consistent speed at these levels with any consumer SSD in RAID0.

Yeah no, and sorry but lol @ that OCZ trash card

Since were talking big fat raid 0 stripes of SSDs which are basically raid 0 stripes of flash chips already, data assumed to have a good copy elsewhere:

Four samsung 830s + LSI 2008 HBA will beat it regardless of data type (real life is often poorly compressible) and for ~$800 you get 1TB of scratch space, with the option to jump up to 8 drives later.

Pci-express 2.0 x8 can become a bottleneck at 8 drives, so I'd go with a 2308 for 3.0 then. (~$1700 for 2TB if anyone is keeping track)

All without being OCZ.

Nearly dead silent HTPC ver 2.0: i3-4340 w/ Noctua NH-L9i on Z87E-itx inside CM130 elite, fanless PSU, SSD OS drive
SAN shares via 40GbE tunneled over 56Gb infiniband links
microcenter & ebay = severe risks to my wallet
Aluminum is offline  
post #42 of 44 Old 11-02-2012, 02:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum View Post

Yeah no, and sorry but lol @ that OCZ trash card
Since were talking big fat raid 0 stripes of SSDs which are basically raid 0 stripes of flash chips already, data assumed to have a good copy elsewhere:
Four samsung 830s + LSI 2008 HBA will beat it regardless of data type (real life is often poorly compressible) and for ~$800 you get 1TB of scratch space, with the option to jump up to 8 drives later.
Pci-express 2.0 x8 can become a bottleneck at 8 drives, so I'd go with a 2308 for 3.0 then. (~$1700 for 2TB if anyone is keeping track)
All without being OCZ.

but now your baseing your personal bias against OCZ card and increasing the technical capacity required of the individual. Would you make the argument if I swapped out the OCZ for say Intel brand ?

Sure anything is possible to be better if you try hard enough or geek out enough...

But that set up is not as easy as slapping in a PCI SSD card into your system from a retail box. And at the performance levels we are talking I doubt the differences of anything are much of a factor.

Your talking speeds way beyond SSD single drives- which everyone already agrees is "fast"

Thanks but no thanks on the LSI card and 4 SSD's set up. The TRIM and drivers and set up worry me more than the reliability of a PCI card from OCZ.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #43 of 44 Old 11-02-2012, 02:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post

I've already spent the cash on the SSDs. I won't actually be putting the 4x128GB in RAID-0 for production use. They'll only be RAIDed for benchmarking specifically to test motherboard RAID scaling and limitations.

That remains to be seen. It'll be interesting to see what the actual benchmarks will show. So far, 2x Samsung 830 256 SATA III RAID-0 benchmarks I've seen show around 1000+MB/s sequential read and 700-800MB/s sequential write. smile.gif

I would love to see the results!! please share.

Two samsung 830 256GB in RAID0 and on SATA3 is pretty bad ass. I expected you would see about what your seeing.

I would be surprised if the 4x 128 SATAII could hang with the 256 x2 SATA3- but I never tried that myself.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #44 of 44 Old 11-02-2012, 03:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,021
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum View Post

Yeah no, and sorry but lol @ that OCZ trash card
Since were talking big fat raid 0 stripes of SSDs which are basically raid 0 stripes of flash chips already, data assumed to have a good copy elsewhere:
Four samsung 830s + LSI 2008 HBA will beat it regardless of data type (real life is often poorly compressible) and for ~$800 you get 1TB of scratch space, with the option to jump up to 8 drives later.
Pci-express 2.0 x8 can become a bottleneck at 8 drives, so I'd go with a 2308 for 3.0 then. (~$1700 for 2TB if anyone is keeping track)
All without being OCZ.

Additionally- Your advice is better suited to a multi thousand dollar server build. It's more serious.

Not a consumer level PC based on a motherboard costing less than the LSI card your suggesting just for an upgraded RAID controller from what the motherboard is sporting.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off