which set up should i go with? 2 Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB Raid 0 or 1 OCZ Vertex Turbo 30GB if i go with the raid 0 set up... it will hold the OS and all programs, media, etc. and have a back up drive. if i go with the vertex ssd... it will hold the OS and select programs. and have a hdd hold media and all other programs. price wise... the 2 F3s are about evenly priced with the 30GB Vertex. thanks. in advance. lxrysprtmscl
well forget the RAID 0 as the speed increase is next to none, plus then the added risk of the array falling over and you loosing the lot. the 30GB vertex is far too small for an OS install and app's, it'll fill up too quick. So go for the two drives but run them on there own.
Ninja'ed... I'd never trust RAID 0 with my data, it isn't worth it, 45 seconds Vista boot up should be enough, get 1 F3 or the SSD, I'd go for the F3
The F3 is a fantastic drive and a 30GB ssd is just not worth it when you consider the amount of storage you get out of the F3 and for the price you pay! I would get an F3, wait 6 months or so for some lower price (but just as fast) SSDs to come out then when they have, make the move! Andy
I'm running a RAID0 system drive and a RAID0 data drive (check my sig). The speed increase over a single drive IS very significant and I don't know what you lot are on about with it being rubbish!? Also the failure rate is the same as with one drive so what does it matter? I'm telling you RAID0 is awesome. My only thought about the above negative comments is that they could be aimed at software RAID which, yes, is useless. Hardware RAID0 is excellent don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
its mainly down to the RAID array fubar'ing it's self, which can be fun at times. If you go the route of getting a separate hardware Raid expansion card with a BBUP unit, then that's a different story.
i was thinking of going the same route when i upgrade in a few weeks. Keep my 2 raptors in raid or get 2x Samsung f3 and sell my existing drives to pay for them. Would an samsung f3 beat raptors in raid0 in speed though. 300Gb doesnt last long though..
My RAID hardware is built in to the motherboard (Asus Maximus Extreme) and I've not had a problem with it at all in the nearly 3 years I've been running it. Its very fast and very stable
No one said it wasn't fast, we'd just rather not be f'ed in the a when one drive fails and we lose alll our data
Actually someone did say it wasn't any faster than a single drive which is clearly incorrect. Your point about losing all your data if one drive fails is well taken but think of it this way... if your non-raid drive fails you've also lost all your data. Having your system on a 2 disc RAID0 array admittedly does double your chance of drive failure but when you think about it, this is only an increase of say 1 in 10000 to 2 in 10000, it's still hugely unlikely and therefore I don't think it should be argued so strongly against as a bad point of RAID0. When it comes down to it I suppose its down to personal taste and how you consider the relevant statistics. I chose to see it a (nearly) doubling the speed of my system for nearly no downside; doubling the chance of failure is still after all a very low chance of failure.
Like it's been said above: RAID 0 is really for people who don't care about their data, at all. Also, I personally cannot fathom the current interest in SSDs. Yes, they're pretty fast, but as it stands there're still some difficulties to overcome, like the fact that they get slower as they get filled (due to the way writing is handled). SSDs right now are best used for data that changes very little.
Wasn't that adressed in many of the latest drives? IIRC this has been fixed in latest generation of drives...?
I'm not really sure how you can fix it without radically changing the way SSDs are written to. That new ATA command introduced with Win7 (TRUNCATE, I believe) will help a bit, but the fundamental problem is still there. As the disk fills entire blocks of data have to be read into memory, erased on the disk then rewritten just to change a single bit. There's also the issue of wear levelling (to maximise the life time of the SSD) and the subsequent need to *never* defragment an SSD, but they're relatively minor issues in comparison. That'll probably put Diskeeper out of business at some point, though...
thank you everybody for the responses. i appreciate the feedback. about the drive failure... i knew of the greater risk. but i would have a back up drive as a clone for the raid. wouldn't that be good 'safety' fallback? about the solid state drive... i could spring for a 60GB ssd, i was just trying to get a comparison with the prices close. would a 60gb ssd really be that much better than 2 F3s in raid 0? how much of an improvement would 2 F3s in raid 0 over just a single F3? lxrysprtmscl
If your doing anything normal with your pc ( gaming, encoding etc ), 30-60gb will be gone in a couple of titles and a movie. ssd's are just awful value for money while their access times aren't going to boost performance in key area's ( gpu or cpu ). I'd get the F3's and wait till the price comes down on ssd's before changing.
