1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Storage SSD's - is two better than one?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by TobletDanillio, 11 Mar 2012.

  1. TobletDanillio

    TobletDanillio Minimodder

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    379
    Likes Received:
    5
    ok for my birthday my wife is getting me a SSD and I said whatever she saves up i will double so I can upgrade what she gets me.

    Now I know I want a Crucial M4.

    but here is the question is one 256GB better than two 128GB better

    With the one I would partition the drive 1) for the operating system 2) programs and I have a 1Tb for data.
    With the two I'm not so sure as you don't need 128GB for the operating system.

    but would do you guys think is better getting two 128GB or one 256GB?
    and if two what to do with them both?

    thanks for your help
     
  2. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
    1 256gb is always better, because you still get to use the TRIM command to keep your SSD speed from degrading.
     
    Teelzebub likes this.
  3. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    Having each partition on separate physical drives is always preferable as if one fails, it's less data loss, and less to restore from back ups. You'll still have the same storage space either way. Having said that, if you back up, having all data in one place on a ssd is not the bottle neck it was with mechanical drives, as it's totally random access.
     
  4. PyrO_PrOfessOr

    PyrO_PrOfessOr What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    51
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have to agree with the above, while two 128's in RAID 0 (assuming SATA III here) would e blisteringly fast, that sorta speed almost isn't necessary. Unless you're insane :D

    Definitely go for the 256 :)
     
  5. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    OP never mentioned RAID. I think he just wanted to know if he should get a 256 and partition it to C: and D: or get two 128s and have separate C: and D:
     
    Teelzebub likes this.
  6. Matticus

    Matticus ...

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    3,347
    Likes Received:
    117
    If you setup raid 0 on two 128GB it would be hella fast, faster than a 256GB. But don't forget to make backups of important data has raid 0 is (sort of) doubling your chances of data loss.

    Keeping 2 SSD's of the same size separate in my opinion is pointless as the idea of an SSD is for all out speed so why not make the most of it. I would orphan an older, mismatched size SSD to just games or software, but 2 of the same size I would be all over raid 0 :D

    A single 256GB drive would be very very quick still, and would give you the option of another at a later date...

    So some points to ponder rather than a definitive answer from me :)



    I also figured this was the case, but thought I would mention raid 0 in case he hadn't considered it.

    Also has trim not been enabled on raid 0 now?
     
  7. PyrO_PrOfessOr

    PyrO_PrOfessOr What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    51
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ah that changes the game a bit. My apologies for reading too fast! In that case I would take two drives for the reasons pookeyhead stated!
     
  8. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon Modder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trim's not yet normally (well, there's the OCZ VCA2 thing, but that's not really within the consumer end of things) available in R0 - on the intel side then it 'should' be some time this quarter in the 11.5 rst drivers... ...but no word about other platforms...

    Though, of course, the SFs are not reliant on trim so this could still be a sensible option depending upon the drive choice made.


    As to the original question, & excluding R0, it's very debatable which is the better option.

    Well, off the bat, the 256GB drives are inherently quicker than the 128GB ones on a model to model basis - the nearest pairing being the toggle nand SFs (V3 max iops, etc), whereas there are far greater differences with others - though they tend to be more expensive than the 128GBs...

    ...but, it's then about balancing having all of the free space & OP (whether inherent or user added) shared between everything & potentially having a significantly higher amount of static data having to be moved around with wear levelling - being a pro & a con of a single SSD.


    Now, certainly, going back when the 128GB M4s were significantly cheaper than the 120GB toggle nand SFs, there was a very good argument for having the OS & whatnot on one (or more) top end SF (best r.l. speeds & maintenance & whatnot), whilst using an M4 (very fast reads, but much slower write speeds) for highly static data (where wear levelling & slower write speeds aren't really going to be an issue) such as a games installation drive...

    ...however, with amazon doing the 120GB max iops for less than £140, the differential is much smaller.


    Since the OP's stated that they *have* to have 1 or 2 M4s though, this last point then become moot... ...not what i'd choose, but it's their money & their choice.

    So, imho, it will depend largely on both cost, what %age of their data is static vs the capacity & what their write load is vs the unused capacity -

    (i) cost differential being their call...

    (ii) a huge %age of static data vs capacity will tend to lead to better performance by having 2 drives by having more of the free space & (manually created) OP on the OS drive...

    [Well, with the old V Turbo in this machine, i've got ~55% OP & ~30-35% free space for an OS & basic software usage &, despite it neither having the best GC or being anything like the fastest SSD any more, it is incredibly robust in maintaining speeds & nand longevity.]

    (iii) & with a very high (esp random/mixed) write load, you'd tend to want to max the free space & OP on the drive in question which would give an advantage to splitting d.t. (ii).

    [NB with 2 identical drives then you'd want to swap their usage on each reinstallation.]​

    - but...

    (ii) if after taking off the static data then there is a significant amount of space left for free space & increased OP you'd get the speed advantages from the single larger one...

    (iii) & with a lighter write load then you can both get away from having *as much* free space & OP, & there's less impact from the need for idle time GC to wear level.

    [NB with the exception of a (effectively) static data only drive, you really do need at least 7% OP - as the M4s have 0%, you'd need to create this by under partitioning.]​

    Okay, so this isn't a straight answer, but there isn't one without knowing the actual usage that it will take.

    Well, personally, if i had the money, i'd still look at a pair of 120GB max iopses in R0 plus a M4 for games... ...but that's just me.



    Oh, & as i forgot to mention it & there's nowhere it sensibly fits in, there is no inherent disadvantage to having multiple partitions on a single SSD - as the physical nand is used by the controller to store whatever data it fancies, both the unused formatted space & the OP are shared between partitions.



    & to lastly give an alt opinion on Pookeyhead's argument, if the OS drive were to fail for whatever reason, you would still need to reinstall almost everything no matter whether the other programs & games were on a single SSD or spread across a thousand (the only exceptions i can readily think of being, to a large extent, steam plus any portable versions of software).

    Now, as the OS drive has an equal chance of failing if it's a single 128GB or a single 256GB SSD, there is no really inherent gain that i can envisage in reducing the time to reinstall if either of them failed...

    ...whilst Steam will repair itself & portable programs are literally that, everything else will need reinstalling anyway d.t. both the registry & that some data is stored on the OS drive...


    Separately, by using more than one drive, you are doubling the incredibly slim chance (ignoring the likely clustering of faulty products within manufacturing batches which would tend to increase the likelihood of the second one failing if the first did // that if something like an electrical fault affected one SSD then the other is likely to also be affected // malware's likely to effect both // etc) that one of them may fail prematurely.

    As drive failure generally has a very slim chance of occurring then i wouldn't overly worry about either being of any major import (well, naturally i've been using a 4x SSD R0 array for over a year & a half now) - so personally i would see this as being irrelevant to your choice...

    ...though you naturally should ensure that any important data is backed up.
     
    Pete J likes this.
  9. scott_chegg

    scott_chegg Minimodder

    Joined:
    16 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    952
    Likes Received:
    83
    No "sort of" about it. 2 pieces of hardware is defo double the chance of data loss through hardware failure.

    Get 1 big ssd and enjoy.
     
  10. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon Modder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    But a random controller failure (which is the most likely occurrance with a very early hardware fault with SSDs, once the f/w has had any kinks worked out), is far less likely than any of the other reasons for losing data... ...& the chances are incredibly slim.

    Electrical issues causing a controller failure, malware, user error, etc are all far more likely direct causes for data loss - esp once a SSD's been working for a few weeks/couple of months so has gotten passed the very early failure point...

    ...& without a proper backup regieme they all stand the chance of losing data.


    Now, as said, since the OP was talking about potentially *only* having programs installed on the second one & not using R0 - so it is only the OS one that would actually contain important data - the chances of losing the important data on the first 128GB M4 is identical to losing data from a 256GB M4...

    (given that, naturally, there's no knowing beforehand whether a batch of either capacity that's being bought from may have a higher no of faulty drives than normal or not - or, indeed, may conversely have a higher no of drives with nand that will last significantly longer than its rating... it can cut both ways...)

    ...there being a complete difference between losing important data & something like installed programs that, once the drive's replaced/malware removed/etc, can simply be reinstalled.
     
    Last edited: 12 Mar 2012
  11. TobletDanillio

    TobletDanillio Minimodder

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    379
    Likes Received:
    5
    I don't want raid as it would be pointless as I would see just difference in speed.
    I will tell you what I will be using this system for and hopefully this will help a bit more.
    I will be using this system for photoshop/lightroom
    PC gaming like battlefield.

    Now what I was thinking was if I had two I would have the OS plus basic programs on one and have games plus photos I was editing on the other.

    I will not be buy more SSDs in the future as I will not have the money. Unless one brakes.

    I'm still thinking two but from what I have read from you guys I'm head for one.

    Thanks for all your information. :)

    Send from HTC DESIRE HD
     
  12. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon Modder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Mmmmm...


    Right, everything that follows is on the basis that you're going to be dealing with a reasonably large no of high res images (rather than only the odd one or two every so often) &, having finished them, will be storing them on HDD w. optical backup...

    ...if it's only the odd one or two every so often then just go for a single large SSD - leaving at least 7% OP & a decent amount of free space.


    So, given that you'd largely going to be writing reasonably large sequential files with photos (though there will also be the normal smaller ones (esp) t'internet & log files & whatnot), i'd be tempted to stick with 2, but arrange things slightly differently...


    Either -

    SSD1 - OS, pagefile, any programs that *have* to be on the windows OS & images.

    ignoring the images, you 'should' be able to get this down to no more than 20-30GB - allowing you to have a very good amount of OP (say ~30GB) whilst still leaving ~59-69GB of space to share between the images you're actually working on at a given time & free space.

    SSD2 - all the programs that don't *have* to be on the OS drive & games.

    For this usage, as you'd be rarely updating anything, there is no need for extra OP or particularly much free space.


    Now, the advantages of this setup are that, whilst you're committing the majority of the writes to a single SSD (& so you're not splitting the GC load between the two), the extra OP (+ ideally keeping ~17GB (~20% of the formatted area) of the 59-69GB free at all times) will make this drive considerably more robust; both in terms of maintaining speeds & nand longevity...

    ...& it also saves having to make both drives more robust by under partitioning & maintaining free space on both.


    Or -

    SSD1 - the OS, all of the programs, games, etc (but not the pagefile, most temp folders or images)

    For this, you'd ideally want to add ~7% OP & maintain a reasonable amount of free space (maybe 10%+), as there still will be a reasonable no of writes to the drive over time.

    SSD2 - pagefile, temp folders (these can be moved in Win7), the images & scratch folders & potentially, but not necessarily, things like Outlook's email folders...

    For this you'd ideally want to go for a very large amount of OP (again ~28% so ~33GB) & maintain a decent amount of free space for the majority of the time (again ~20% of the formatted space so ~17.9GB)...

    ...or i guess you could go for a lower amount of OP & Secure Erase & re-format every so often... ...depends how regularly you'd be happy arsing about to do this vs having something that just works.


    The advantages of this setup are that, whilst again you'd be putting the majority of the write load on one SSD, by eliminating having a significant no of static files on that SSD (vs the 1st option), it reduces the amount of wear levelling that GC will do - this, alongside the extra OP & whatnot, would again give you a very robust system; both in terms of maintaining speeds & nand longevity...

    ...it also 'should' mean that there will be almost no r.l. impact from wear levelling on either drive.


    i guess, given a choice, i'd tend toward the 2nd of the two.


    Oh, & again i would look at swapping the drives over in their usage every time you reinstall Windows (every 6 months or so is normal procedure) as this will average the wear over the two.
     
  13. TobletDanillio

    TobletDanillio Minimodder

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    379
    Likes Received:
    5
    I think we have a winner with the 2rd one.
    I wont be re-installing the OS every 6 months are I will have a ghost image of the drives and just format them and swap the two over.

    as this will save me lots of time but I will make sure I keep all drivers up to date.

    thanks so much for the help
     
  14. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon Modder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    No problem at all :)

    Yeah, it's always about weighing up the pros & cons for what someone's actually going to be doing, rather than a 'one size fits all' approach.

    Well, whilst i don't rate the M4s particularly (not that they're shonky - other than the 0% default OP - but there's better 120/128GB drives for an OS install... ...either the (esp) high end toggle nand SFs or the Corair Performance Pro), i'm always happy to try & help people get the best from what they have/want...

    ...it's not my money that's being spent naturally.


    Oh & the 6 months was simply a rough timeline... ...well, it's what i normally use as a reinstall period simply as Windows does get full of junk over time & less efficient... though a month or so either way isn't going to make a huge difference.

    Okay, it's much less pronounced with SSDs & Win7, than it used to be with HDDs & Vista/2000/XP/98/95/3.1/etc, but...
     
  15. TobletDanillio

    TobletDanillio Minimodder

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    379
    Likes Received:
    5
    what SSD would you get?


    O one thing do you know any good 5.25" bay converter that will hold the two 2.5" drives?
    I have seen some on scan but I would like to put a fan on it as my PC isn't the coolest lol and I don't have money to wast buying a replacement.
     
  16. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon Modder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139

    Well, personally i would look at a toggle nand SF for the OS, etc (ie the max iops for <£140 all in on Amazon)...

    ...& either the same (if you're not working with heavily compressed images) or either a Corsair Performance Pro (budget allowing) or a M4 (more limited budget) for the 2nd one (if they are heavily compressed).

    [NB as the SFs have a far lower write amplification then unless you bought 2 identical ones for both drives, i wouldn't bother swapping them every 6 months... They also have 7% OP as standard (unlike the other two with 0%) so you have to factor that in when doing any additional OP sums.]​

    & if you didn't want to go with SFs (not everyone does) then it'd be the Corsair PP for the OS, etc...

    ...& either a Corsair PP (budget allowing) or a M4 (more limited budget) for the 2nd one.

    [NB ideally you'd want the same, but the PP is a *much* better OS drive than the M4 - if you got different ones again then similarly you wouldn't be swapping them - but the PP is somewhat more robust as it also uses higher rated toggle nand.]​


    Yeah, for your uses, if you can't budget for having both drives being 'the best', you want to prioritise the OS one based upon the info you've given - & probably consider keeping the pagefile on it (esp if the 2nd SSD was a M4)...

    ...the earlier advice was about using 2x M4s with naturally identical specs.



    As to drive converters, are you sure you need them? i just leave mine lying loose in the case, whilst many people use adhesive velcro...

    Well, they neither generate a detectable amount of heat nor are particularly susceptible to it... & are *very* resilient to vibration &... so i personally don't see the need.
     
    Last edited: 12 Mar 2012
  17. TobletDanillio

    TobletDanillio Minimodder

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    379
    Likes Received:
    5
    the cssd-p128gbp-bk is like £140 ish is this the one you mean?

    so one of them as the os drive and a m4 for the other? sorry i'm still trying to get all the means lol.

    the case i have only has 5.25" bays and i don't really have anyway to put the drive i could stick the drives to the case with vhb from work (i wouldn't get it off lol) its not the coolest case and i want to be OTT with the cooling on the drive to insure they last.
     
  18. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon Modder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    To give a more complete ordering (1=best, 3=worst)

    For the OS SSD - either (1) a toggle nand SF (ie the Max iops), (2) the toggle nand Corsair PP - & yes that is the correct drive - (3a) a sync nand SF (like the normal V3) or (3b) the M4.

    [3a & 3b - they perform about the same over all, but the SF has the compression advantage]​

    For the second SSD with pretty compressible images (eg NEF, CR2, uncompressed TIFFs, etc), depending on budget then - (1) a toggle nand SF, (2) the toggle nand Corsair PP, (3) a sync nand SF or (4) the M4.

    & for the second SSD with highly incompressible images (eg jpegs & whatnot), depending on budget then - (1) the toggle nand Corsair PP, (2a) a toggle nand SF or (2b) the M4

    [2a & 2b - the toggle nand SF will be marginally faster than the M4 for seqential incompressible r/ws, but if the M4 can be gotten much cheaper then it's not really worth the price differential - the SF will also lose it's gains in nand longevity d.t. recompressing data, but has better quality nand...

    ...i really wouldn't look at any of the sync nand SFs for this use.]​


    Now, this certainly isn't saying that the M4 is shonky - or that you *have* to follow this ordering otherwise there will be instant disaster - simply that there are advantages to different techs in different situations...

    Well, atm, the 6Gb/s SFs will normally win out when using equivalent nand to a Marvell controller one for either a heavy OS/Apps usage or (esp) when only using compressible files - not least d.t. the increased nand longevity...

    Whilst they suffer with very incompressible file write speed - & lose much of their advantage on nand longevity d.t. not being able to recompress them.

    [NB with the 3rd gen SFs, 'apparently' they will be much better with incompressible write speeds - but this doesn't help at this moment in time & there's no data for them.]​



    & so it's up to you as to where your budget lies & what you are happy with buying - again, some people are really anti-SF so it's about giving a choice.

    Both the toggle nand SFs & the PP are really great drives & are so much better than the M4 with a higher end intensive usage that imho they are worth the price differential...

    ...unless you're looking at either a really basic usage or a read only situation, which you're not...


    Otherwise...

    Well, i know that all of the OCZ SSDs i've bought came with 2.5" to 3.5" adapters (though some brands don't come with them)... ...so i guess you could look for a couple of generic 5.25" to 3.5" HDD coolers...

    Though, a quick check on the boxes for mine, the operating temps are 0-70C - & i don't think the inside of your case is likely to be getting *that* hot.

    if you need extra cooling, i'd *really* suggest spending the money on higher spec case fans &/or looking at cooling the HDD rather than the SSDs... ...but that's how i'd spend my money.
     

Share This Page