SSD? 10k Mechanical? Which one?

[Cigarjohn]

Which storage options will be good for my needs?

I want to build a new computer for extreme gaming and also video editing.

Here are the options I was thinking of. I need to know if they are over-kill or just right and what benefits will I receive from them.

(Note): I will be using an external backup on a daily basis for all my storage configurations.


Option 1:

Either (1 or 2) 64 gb SSD's on a Raid 0 for my primary boot drive and [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]office[/COLOR][/COLOR] productivity.
(4) 128 gb SSD's on a Raid 0 as a secondary drive for my games and other utilities/[COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]software[/COLOR][/COLOR].

Option 2:

(1 or 2) 64 gb SSD's on a Raid 0 as my primary boot drive.
(2) WD VelociRaptor 600 gb 6gbs 10k drives on a Raid 0.

Option 3:

(1 or 2) 64 gb SSD's on a Raid 0 as my primary boot drive.
(4) WD VelociRaptor 600 gb 6gbs 10k drives on a Raid 5.

Option 4:

(4) WD VelociRaptor 600 gb 6gbs 10k drives on a Raid 5 loaded with everything.


I will be using a seperate Raid controller card (LSI 9261-8i).

Any advice and suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. It is very important to me and the storage situation is the only thing that is holding me back in my system build.

Peace.

 

[reflex99]

SSDs will be any mechanical

If you want to sacrifice trim for speed, I suggest using all SSDs.


or you could
Option X:
1x 250ish GB SSD (TRIM doesn't work in RAID, so your dirves would slow down over time)

8xSamsung F4s in some crazy fast array

 

[Mikkel]

I absolutely love my SSD. Not only is it extremely fast (~280 Mbps Read/Write). It's also very quiet since it doesn't have mechanical parts.

 

[Cigarjohn]

SSDs will be any mechanical

If you want to sacrifice trim for speed, I suggest using all SSDs.


or you could
Option X:
1x 250ish GB SSD (TRIM doesn't work in RAID, so your dirves would slow down over time)

8xSamsung F4s in some crazy fast array

So when you say that without trim, my drives will slow down over time? Do you mean detoriate and eventually die?

 

[reflex99]

So when you say that without trim, my drives will slow down over time? Do you mean detoriate and eventually die?

Without trim, they will slow down until you reformat them, or run some kind of garbage collection software. One you have done either of those, the drive(s) will be back to full speed.

TRIM is like 24/7 constant garbage collection.

More info here:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/white_paper_trim_command

 

[Cigarjohn]

Without trim, they will slow down until you reformat them, or run some kind of garbage collection software. One you have done either of those, the drive(s) will be back to full speed.

TRIM is like 24/7 constant garbage collection.

More info here:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/white_paper_trim_command

So, maybe I'll just go with 1 or 2 SSD's on a Raid 0 for my system drive only and 2 VelociRaptors 600 gb's on Raid 0 for my games and other programs. I guess the 2 10k drives would be fast enough for gaming and other software programs.

 

[Cigarjohn]

Without trim, they will slow down until you reformat them, or run some kind of garbage collection software. One you have done either of those, the drive(s) will be back to full speed.

TRIM is like 24/7 constant garbage collection.

More info here:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/white_paper_trim_command

Thanks for the link to better learn about Trim. Now, I guess I'll use my SSD's with my motherboards Raid and Windows 7 for the trim and use my Raid Controller card with the mechanical drives. I guess this would be my best option.

 

[cool breeze]

Why not a hybrid SSD, or two in RAID for your OS and then keep with the 10K drives idea for storage? SSDs are fast, but I'm not sure the priceerformance ratio is exactly optimal just yet. Plus, you have to replace them more often than any other drive as they only have a limited number of writes before they crap out. By the time they come down in price enough that people can afford to switch them out a couple times a year on a 24\7 powered on PC, there will (read: SHOULD) be something faster available.

Hybrid SSD is nice in that you have the known quality speed and durability of platter technology, but most of you commonly accessed files are kept in solid state, so you get the boot and application speed you want without a limited number of writes-till-failure.

If anyone remembers old hybrids and their bad reviews, check out this article:
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/101021/

Oh yeah, no matter what you do, at least make sure everything is SATA 3 if you are building from scratch. I don't care if you have a rocket strapped to your hdd, if its connected with an IDE cable its gonna be pointless to have spent money. At the moment, I feel the same about SATA 2.

 

[Ph?bus]

Why not a hybrid SSD, or two in RAID for your OS and then keep with the 10K drives idea for storage? SSDs are fast, but I'm not sure the priceerformance ratio is exactly optimal just yet. Plus, you have to replace them more often than any other drive as they only have a limited number of writes before they crap out. By the time they come down in price enough that people can afford to switch them out a couple times a year on a 247 powered on PC, there will (read: SHOULD) be something faster available.

Hybrid SSD is nice in that you have the known quality speed and durability of platter technology, but most of you commonly accessed files are kept in solid state, so you get the boot and application speed you want without a limited number of writes-till-failure.

If anyone remembers old hybrids and their bad reviews, check out this article:
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/101021/

Oh yeah, no matter what you do, at least make sure everything is SATA 3 if you are building from scratch. I don't care if you have a rocket strapped to your hdd, if its connected with an IDE cable its gonna be pointless to have spent money. At the moment, I feel the same about SATA 2.

And that number of writes is in the billions. So that's a null point.

 

[Cigarjohn]

And that number of writes is in the billions. So that's a null point.

From reading all the reviews all over the web, I guess my best option is to purchase (1) 128 SSD - Crucial C300 and don't Raid it. Just leave it alone and let Win 7 use its Trim to keep it running fast. I think the C300 has built in Trim. Anyway, don't Raid it.

And then get probably (2) WD VelociRaptors 10k's and just Raid 0 them. I'm sure the 10k drives will be good enough for game loads and other software loads. Plus the 5 year warranties on those drive are pretty good.

I'll have to contact some Raid Controller Manufactures and pick their brains.

And people are talking about SATA III? I haven't seen any SATA III on mobo's or controller cards. If you have, send me a link.

Peace.

 

[Ph?bus]

From reading all the reviews all over the web, I guess my best option is to purchase (1) 128 SSD - Crucial C300 and don't Raid it. Just leave it alone and let Win 7 use its Trim to keep it running fast. I think the C300 has built in Trim. Anyway, don't Raid it.

And then get probably (2) WD VelociRaptors 10k's and just Raid 0 them. I'm sure the 10k drives will be good enough for game loads and other software loads. Plus the 5 year warranties on those drive are pretty good.

I'll have to contact some Raid Controller Manufactures and pick their brains.

And people are talking about SATA III? I haven't seen any SATA III on mobo's or controller cards. If you have, send me a link.

Peace.

Sata III is still new. It's the new "standard", but it's hardly used even by OEM computers.
You don't need a RAID card if you're just using RAID 0, as long as your motherboard has an onboard RAID controller, which it probably does.

 

[Ducttape]

SATA III is the next thing; it'll slowly trickle down, but will probably take some time. First the controller support on the motherboards, then the hard drives have to support it - if you want to upgrade anytime soon, I wouldn't bother waiting around for SATA III.

USB 3 has been 'around' for, wow, over a year - when was it first announced? two years ago? And just now are motherboard manufacturers starting to include it on anything other then the multi-hundred top of the line motherboards.

BTW, my setup is kinda 'new', we'll see if it catches on: I have a 64GB mini-PCIe SSD and a 500GB HD set-up in, well, not RAID. It's a new technology from Lenovo called Rapid Drive - I was wary at first, but wow it's nice in practice.

To the OP: If this is your first experience with SSD's, you'll be pleasantly surprised: things just open, close, run, and work faster. Really, really, faster. Everything feels BRISK. Yes, I <3 SSD

God Luck with your set-up!

 

[Cigarjohn]

SATA III is the next thing; it'll slowly trickle down, but will probably take some time. First the controller support on the motherboards, then the hard drives have to support it - if you want to upgrade anytime soon, I wouldn't bother waiting around for SATA III.

USB 3 has been 'around' for, wow, over a year - when was it first announced? two years ago? And just now are motherboard manufacturers starting to include it on anything other then the multi-hundred top of the line motherboards.

BTW, my setup is kinda 'new', we'll see if it catches on: I have a 64GB mini-PCIe SSD and a 500GB HD set-up in, well, not RAID. It's a new technology from Lenovo called Rapid Drive - I was wary at first, but wow it's nice in practice.

To the OP: If this is your first experience with SSD's, you'll be pleasantly surprised: things just open, close, run, and work faster. Really, really, faster. Everything feels BRISK. Yes, I <3 SSD

God Luck with your set-up!

I'm such a 'Poindexter'. Ofcourse SATA III exist. Anything that runs 6 gbps is SATA III. The controller card I'm getting will run SATA III and the mobo I'm buying will also run SATA III.

Sorry, I'm old and slow to learn.

Peace!

P.S. Thaks for your input. It helps alot.

 

[Cigarjohn]

Sata III is still new. It's the new "standard", but it's hardly used even by OEM computers.
You don't need a RAID card if you're just using RAID 0, as long as your motherboard has an onboard RAID controller, which it probably does.

But I hear that a Raid Controller card is more reliable and faster than a Raid on a mobo. The mobo Raid uses the processors resources to run where a seperate Raid card has its own processor freeing up the main processor for other tasks.

Peace.

 

[reflex99]

From reading all the reviews all over the web, I guess my best option is to purchase (1) 128 SSD - Crucial C300 and don't Raid it. Just leave it alone and let Win 7 use its Trim to keep it running fast. I think the C300 has built in Trim. Anyway, don't Raid it.

And then get probably (2) WD VelociRaptors 10k's and just Raid 0 them. I'm sure the 10k drives will be good enough for game loads and other software loads. Plus the 5 year warranties on those drive are pretty good.

I'll have to contact some Raid Controller Manufactures and pick their brains.

And people are talking about SATA III? I haven't seen any SATA III on mobo's or controller cards. If you have, send me a link.

Peace.

I'm such a 'Poindexter'. Ofcourse SATA III exist. Anything that runs 6 gbps is SATA III. The controller card I'm getting will run SATA III and the mobo I'm buying will also run SATA III.

Sorry, I'm old and slow to learn.

Peace!

P.S. Thaks for your input. It helps alot.

If you use the C300 on SATAIII, it doesn't support TRIM. You have to use it on SATAII for trim support.

If you want trim i highly suggest a sandforce based drive (one with 50k iops):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227590

But I hear that a Raid Controller card is more reliable and faster than a Raid on a mobo. The mobo Raid uses the processors resources to run where a seperate Raid card has its own processor freeing up the main processor for other tasks.

Peace.

Yes, onboard raid is slower once you get >2ish drives

 

[Ph?bus]

But I hear that a Raid Controller card is more reliable and faster than a Raid on a mobo. The mobo Raid uses the processors resources to run where a seperate Raid card has its own processor freeing up the main processor for other tasks.

Peace.

If you use the C300 on SATAIII, it doesn't support TRIM. You have to use it on SATAII for trim support.

If you want trim i highly suggest a sandforce based drive (one with 50k iops):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227590




Yes, onboard raid is slower once you get >2ish drives

Onboard RAID is slower when you're actually doing a RAID array. RAID 0 isn't true RAID (redundant array of inexpensive discs). It's not for redundancy at all. If one drive fails, it doesn't have to rebuild a disc. It will only be slow if you have, like Reflex said, more than 2 drives, but only writing would be slow, read speeds would be very fast.

 

[cool breeze]

And that number of writes is in the billions. So that's a null point.

My half of the argument of that point was that all my data would be stored on separate mechanical drives and that, if I had to, just to ensure longevity, I would even install all of my software to that (or those) drives, just to keep the work the SSD is doing to a minimum. Hell, I'll even just install Windows and only do Windows update for things I absolutely must have to maintain functionality instead of leaving it on "automatic".

The person was merely introducing a caveat and being an industry professional as well as my father, I'm inclined to listen when they talk about computers. Last time we discussed it, he talked me out of SSDs, I'll see if he can make another valid argument about them as phobus' comment caused me to pull up a number of arguments (that were dated recently) of how mathematically the 'limit' of these drives would likely only be reached by the time I have long since replaced them, or upgraded to something far superior.

I'm inclined to agree with phobus on this one. He reminded me that I believe in the SSD technology and that they've been out too long to not have been revised and fixed by now.

SATA 3 certainly isnt a moot point though. No matter how fast a drive performs internally, what matters is how quickly its throughput is. I mean, drive performance would only matter if you had like, SATA 57 and the hard drive was spinning at 12rpms (I know that is a dramatic example).

I will find and post up several examples of motherboards having native SATA as well as USB 3 support if I have to. Whoever made that comment made me feel like we were having this discussion over a year ago. Personally, I don't understand why someone would consider using a mobo that doesn't support both of those (unless there is a chipset limitation or trade off to having them that isnt worth it, like pcie slot can only run 4x instead of 8x in sli if sata3 or usb3 was in use, in that case, yeah).

I'm thinking about going SSD again, thanks phobus

 

[reflex99]

My half of the argument of that point was that all my data would be stored on separate mechanical drives and that, if I had to, just to ensure longevity, I would even install all of my software to that (or those) drives, just to keep the work the SSD is doing to a minimum. Hell, I'll even just install Windows and only do Windows update for things I absolutely must have to maintain functionality instead of leaving it on "automatic".

The person was merely introducing a caveat and being an industry professional as well as my father, I'm inclined to listen when they talk about computers. Last time we discussed it, he talked me out of SSDs, I'll see if he can make another valid argument about them as phobus' comment caused me to pull up a number of arguments (that were dated recently) of how mathematically the 'limit' of these drives would likely only be reached by the time I have long since replaced them, or upgraded to something far superior.

I'm inclined to agree with phobus on this one. He reminded me that I believe in the SSD technology and that they've been out too long to not have been revised and fixed by now.

SATA 3 certainly isnt a moot point though. No matter how fast a drive performs internally, what matters is how quickly its throughput is. I mean, drive performance would only matter if you had like, SATA 57 and the hard drive was spinning at 12rpms (I know that is a dramatic example).

I will find and post up several examples of motherboards having native SATA as well as USB 3 support if I have to. Whoever made that comment made me feel like we were having this discussion over a year ago. Personally, I don't understand why someone would consider using a mobo that doesn't support both of those (unless there is a chipset limitation or trade off to having them that isnt worth it, like pcie slot can only run 4x instead of 8x in sli if sata3 or usb3 was in use, in that case, yeah).

I'm thinking about going SSD again, thanks phobus

1. SSDs will almost always outlast Mechanical drives. No moving parts=much less chance for failure. Yes NAND has a set number of read/write cycles, but when you consider the rate of failure on mech. drives, you will see that SSDs can last much longer. Furthermore, modern SSDs use wear-leveling algorithms to make sure that every flash module is used and that they all wear equally

2. there are 0 drives on the market that can saturate SATAII (C300 doesn't count since it doesn't support trim on sataIII), so it is pointless to spend extra for SATAIII. If you do ever buy a drive that can utilize SATAIII, sataIII expansion cards can be had for less than $30.


TLR, SATAIII isnt useful at all, and SSDs are better dispite being expensive


@Phobus, RAID0 is a raid array weather you like it or not. It may not be "redundant", but the original meaning of RAID is so lost

 

[Ph?bus]

snip

SATA 3 certainly isnt a moot point though. No matter how fast a drive performs internally, what matters is how quickly its throughput is. I mean, drive performance would only matter if you had like, SATA 57 and the hard drive was spinning at 12rpms (I know that is a dramatic example).

I will find and post up several examples of motherboards having native SATA as well as USB 3 support if I have to. Whoever made that comment made me feel like we were having this discussion over a year ago. Personally, I don't understand why someone would consider using a mobo that doesn't support both of those (unless there is a chipset limitation or trade off to having them that isnt worth it, like pcie slot can only run 4x instead of 8x in sli if sata3 or usb3 was in use, in that case, yeah).

I'm thinking about going SSD again, thanks phobus

Sata 3 is moot in my eyes, seeing as SSDs aren't even at the speed limit of Sata 2 (which is ~375mb/s), so why do we need Sata 3 (~750mb/s)? Only enthusiast boards support them, and very few mainstream boards, but the mainstream boards aren't fully there yet, with perhaps two Sata 3 ports, and Sata 3 drives being fairly expensive compared to their Sata 2 brethren.

USB3 is useless as well, since nothing that is standard uses it. Imo, once mp3 players, such as iPhones and iPods start using USB3, it won't be very popular. It has the same issue with motherboard availability, and having to sacrifice PCIe lanes.

The chipsets simply aren't ready for USB3.

 

[reflex99]

Sata 3 is moot in my eyes, seeing as SSDs aren't even at the speed limit of Sata 2 (which is ~375mb/s), so why do we need Sata 3 (~750mb/s)? Only enthusiast boards support them, and very few mainstream boards, but the mainstream boards aren't fully there yet, with perhaps two Sata 3 ports, and Sata 3 drives being fairly expensive compared to their Sata 2 brethren.

USB3 is useless as well, since nothing that is standard uses it. Imo, once mp3 players, such as iPhones and iPods start using USB3, it won't be very popular. It has the same issue with motherboard availability, and having to sacrifice PCIe lanes.

The chipsets simply aren't ready for USB3.

*cough* sataII is 300MB/s *cough*