Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Storage
Storage SSDs, HDDs, CD/DVD/Bluray
Forum Jump

wait a minute now..

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-04-09, 11:04 AM Thread Starter   #1
creecher
Member

 
creecher's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans

 
Exclamation wait a minute now..


if im gonna spend 100 dollars on a wd 1tb caviar black, and 300 on an ssd, why dont i just buy 3 extra cb's and raid0 with 4 of them?
would that be faster?
if so, would 3 still be faster?
or is this just really excessive

edit: for $400 worth of storage, i could
almost get 6 500gb cb's
4 1tb's
5 640 gb's
5 750 gb's best value with storage options?

__________________
HAL 10000
STILL TINKER'IN

i7 920 @ 4.3 GHZ 24/7
ASUS P6X58D Premium | BFG GTX 285
6gb (3x2) DOMINATOR GT 1600 7-7-7-20
HAF 932 w/ 8 R4's | 750-HX
Megahalem Shadow w/2 p/p 'megafast' deltas

'MY HEARTS BEATIN!! MY HANDS ARE SHAKEIN'!!! BUT IM STILL SHOOTIN!! IM STILL GETTIN KILLS LIKE BOOM! HEAD SHOT!!! BOOM! HEAD SHOT!!!' - Doug

Last edited by creecher; 09-04-09 at 11:16 AM. Reason: more options
creecher is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 11:17 AM   #2
thideras
Banned Neckbeard Moderator
Premium Member #3

 
thideras's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Dakota

 
No number of mechanical drives will come close to touching the random access times of a SSD. I was hitting 7-8ms with 4x WD Black 1tb drives in RAID0. SSD drives will do 0.1ms.

__________________
Desktop: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H | 3570k 4.6 GHz | 32 GB GSkill Ares | GTX 570 | 180 GB Intel & 2 TB total | Arch Linux and Windows 7
Main server: 37 TB raw disk | 2x Opteron 6134 | Asus KGPE-D16 | 48 GB RAM | LSI 8708EM2 | CentOS 6.2
VM Server 1: Dell R510 | 2x E5645 | 128 GB RAM | 4x 300 GB Velociraptor | Xen Cloud Platform (XCP)
VM Server 2: Dell R710 | 2x E5645 | 288 GB RAM | 8x 300 GB Velociraptor | Xen Cloud Platform (XCP)
"That's not overkill, or a lot. That's just thiderastic." -txus.palacios

Current projects: Rackmount Overkill (New) | 30/45 hard drive server
Articles: Rack Mounting 101 | Dell Perc 5/i Throughput Benchmarks
Past projects: Software RAID | The Dragon Case
My Website


Want to talk directly to all the moderators at once? Call the Mod Hotline!
thideras is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 11:17 AM   #3
elbweb
Registered



Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: State College, PA

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by creecher View Post
if im gonna spend 100 dollars on a wd 1tb caviar black, and 300 on an ssd, why dont i just buy 3 extra cb's and raid0 with 4 of them?
would that be faster?
if so, would 3 still be faster?
or is this just really excessive
Most of what you're paying for with the SSD would be unneeded if you have space for something like that, so yes, I would recommend that If you can deal with the (physical) space. You'll lose out on access times/random access still, but I'm sure your read/write speeds would be better.

I would get the big array if you have the space.. but you can see in my sig, i did both (got the intel 80gb drive for my laptop, and a 20x1,5tb array for my server :-P)
elbweb is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 11:18 AM   #4
Ben333
Folding for Team 32!



Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Hampshire

 
Yes, a stripe with those would be faster than one. Maybe even a lot faster, probably not close to that of a solid state drive though. Also, if I were you I'd run those in RAID 5 in case one were to die unless you have backups.
Ben333 is offline Author Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 03:34 PM Thread Starter   #5
creecher
Member

 
creecher's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thideras View Post
No number of mechanical drives will come close to touching the random access times of a SSD. I was hitting 7-8ms with 4x WD Black 1tb drives in RAID0. SSD drives will do 0.1ms.
what all do random access times affect? like how long it takes before it starts reading, or how long in between data finds?

win 7 starting faster and programs being faster are all that i want, so would access times affect that?

i have a haf 932, so i do believe im good to go

__________________
HAL 10000
STILL TINKER'IN

i7 920 @ 4.3 GHZ 24/7
ASUS P6X58D Premium | BFG GTX 285
6gb (3x2) DOMINATOR GT 1600 7-7-7-20
HAF 932 w/ 8 R4's | 750-HX
Megahalem Shadow w/2 p/p 'megafast' deltas

'MY HEARTS BEATIN!! MY HANDS ARE SHAKEIN'!!! BUT IM STILL SHOOTIN!! IM STILL GETTIN KILLS LIKE BOOM! HEAD SHOT!!! BOOM! HEAD SHOT!!!' - Doug
creecher is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 03:36 PM   #6
thideras
Banned Neckbeard Moderator
Premium Member #3

 
thideras's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Dakota

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by creecher View Post
what all do random access times affect? like how long it takes before it starts reading, or how long in between data finds?

win 7 starting faster and programs being faster are all that i want, so would access times affect that?
You should notice a very large speed increase in general computing, gaming, etc. The drives are very "snappy". AKA: You open Firefox and BAM, it is open. The "seek times" are so small that it is almost instant.

__________________
Desktop: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H | 3570k 4.6 GHz | 32 GB GSkill Ares | GTX 570 | 180 GB Intel & 2 TB total | Arch Linux and Windows 7
Main server: 37 TB raw disk | 2x Opteron 6134 | Asus KGPE-D16 | 48 GB RAM | LSI 8708EM2 | CentOS 6.2
VM Server 1: Dell R510 | 2x E5645 | 128 GB RAM | 4x 300 GB Velociraptor | Xen Cloud Platform (XCP)
VM Server 2: Dell R710 | 2x E5645 | 288 GB RAM | 8x 300 GB Velociraptor | Xen Cloud Platform (XCP)
"That's not overkill, or a lot. That's just thiderastic." -txus.palacios

Current projects: Rackmount Overkill (New) | 30/45 hard drive server
Articles: Rack Mounting 101 | Dell Perc 5/i Throughput Benchmarks
Past projects: Software RAID | The Dragon Case
My Website


Want to talk directly to all the moderators at once? Call the Mod Hotline!
thideras is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 03:43 PM Thread Starter   #7
creecher
Member

 
creecher's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thideras View Post
You should notice a very large speed increase in general computing, gaming, etc. The drives are very "snappy". AKA: You open Firefox and BAM, it is open. The "seek times" are so small that it is almost instant.
sorry if im just dur da dur today,
but are the ssd's snappy like this, or the cb's or both?
or door #3 the low access times?

__________________
HAL 10000
STILL TINKER'IN

i7 920 @ 4.3 GHZ 24/7
ASUS P6X58D Premium | BFG GTX 285
6gb (3x2) DOMINATOR GT 1600 7-7-7-20
HAF 932 w/ 8 R4's | 750-HX
Megahalem Shadow w/2 p/p 'megafast' deltas

'MY HEARTS BEATIN!! MY HANDS ARE SHAKEIN'!!! BUT IM STILL SHOOTIN!! IM STILL GETTIN KILLS LIKE BOOM! HEAD SHOT!!! BOOM! HEAD SHOT!!!' - Doug
creecher is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 03:49 PM   #8
Ben333
Folding for Team 32!



Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Hampshire

 
Thideras is referring to SSDs I believe.
Ben333 is offline Author Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 03:57 PM   #9
thideras
Banned Neckbeard Moderator
Premium Member #3

 
thideras's Avatar 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Dakota

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by creecher View Post
sorry if im just dur da dur today,
but are the ssd's snappy like this, or the cb's or both?
or door #3 the low access times?
SSD's. Sorry for the confusion.

__________________
Desktop: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H | 3570k 4.6 GHz | 32 GB GSkill Ares | GTX 570 | 180 GB Intel & 2 TB total | Arch Linux and Windows 7
Main server: 37 TB raw disk | 2x Opteron 6134 | Asus KGPE-D16 | 48 GB RAM | LSI 8708EM2 | CentOS 6.2
VM Server 1: Dell R510 | 2x E5645 | 128 GB RAM | 4x 300 GB Velociraptor | Xen Cloud Platform (XCP)
VM Server 2: Dell R710 | 2x E5645 | 288 GB RAM | 8x 300 GB Velociraptor | Xen Cloud Platform (XCP)
"That's not overkill, or a lot. That's just thiderastic." -txus.palacios

Current projects: Rackmount Overkill (New) | 30/45 hard drive server
Articles: Rack Mounting 101 | Dell Perc 5/i Throughput Benchmarks
Past projects: Software RAID | The Dragon Case
My Website


Want to talk directly to all the moderators at once? Call the Mod Hotline!
thideras is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-04-09, 04:03 PM   #10
johan851
Insatiably Malcontent
Senior Member

 
johan851's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA

10 Year Badge
 
Quote:
what all do random access times affect? like how long it takes before it starts reading, or how long in between data finds?

win 7 starting faster and programs being faster are all that i want, so would access times affect that?
Random access times affect every single read or write the HDD performs. If it needs to read a file, it needs to seek for it. If it needs to read ten files and they're not next to each other (as is often the case) it has to seek for each of them. Same deal with a write. When Windows starts up, it has to seek and load hundreds of files. A program has to do the same kind of thing.

If you want Windows to start up faster and programs to be faster, I would argue that access time is the primary bottleneck. You should read this article (and start on this page): http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631&p=20

To give you one example, say the hard drive needs to load up ten 10MB files. This is a generous test case for the mechanical drive, because the number of files is usually larger and the size of the files is usually smaller.

Four mechanical drives in RAID 0:
Assume sequential read speed of 400mb/s, seek time of 8ms.
Each file takes 0.025ms to read (10mb / 400mb/s)
Each file takes 8ms to find
Total time to read all files: 0.025ms x 10 + 8ms x 10 = 80.25ms

One SSD (Intel X25-M):
Assume sequential read speed of 250mb/s, seek time of 0.1ms.
Each file takes 0.04ms to read (10mb / 250mb/s)
Each file takes 0.1ms to find
Total time to read all files: 0.04ms x 10 + 0.1ms x 10 = 1.4ms.

The SSD, in this example, will do the operation 57 times faster, or in about 2% of the time of the RAID 0 array. That's a BIG difference - and remember, that example favors the mechanical drives! The problem is that for most operations, drives are so fast at sequential reading that access time dominates. It's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it illustrates my point.

You'll see a similar story if you look at the article and find the graphs for random read/write of 4kb files. Compared to a Raptor, the X25-M performs random writes about 30 times faster, and random reads almost 100 times faster.

__________________
ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 | 2500K @ 4.6GHz | 2x4GB Samsung DDR3 | GTX460 768mb
120GB Crucial M4 | 2x 2TB Samsung F4 | Seasonic S12 600w
AV-710 --> y2 DAC --> Custom M^3 --> Custom LM3875 ChipAmp --> Modula MTs
Dual Dell 2007WFP | Watercooled

Last edited by johan851; 09-04-09 at 04:16 PM.
johan851 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 12:41 AM   #11
solstice
Member



Join Date: Dec 2008

 
Anantech article seem strange. He blames the mechanical hard drive for multi-minute boot time. Yet, my machine spend more time in bios boot than in loading up windows. My windows boot time is about 30s to 40s using RAID0 hard drive. I am using Windows VISTA 64 bit too! SSD will not improve that number significantly. I google a Youtube video with OCZ SSD. It was only able to boot in 20s. That is mainly because the person have a very clean setup with basically nothing loaded. I do not optimize my start up apps because boot time is already fast enough for me.

__________________
AMD Phenom II 1090T (stock and overclock when I play a game.)
CPU Fan: OCZ Vendetta 2

4 2GB Kingston Value-Memory DDR2 PC2-6400 ECC CL5
ASUS M3N-HT Deluxe/HDMI
Bios 3106 with ECC enabled
EVGA GTX 280 OC (Got Rid of SLI to reduce Power)
Windows 7 64 bit
Antec Nine Hundred
3Ware 3960SA-8I
2 Hitachi 640 GB + 1 WDC Blue 640 GB + 1TB Hitachi in RAID 5
1 2TB Backup Drive.
solstice is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 12:42 AM   #12
solstice
Member



Join Date: Dec 2008

 
Forgot to mention the bios boot is slow because of my ASUS motherboard. I have no idea why it spend so much time before memory checks. It spends more time on that than on 3Ware firmware load. Then again, I start calculating the time when I click the power button and the LCD seem to take more than 5 seconds to display the screen.

__________________
AMD Phenom II 1090T (stock and overclock when I play a game.)
CPU Fan: OCZ Vendetta 2

4 2GB Kingston Value-Memory DDR2 PC2-6400 ECC CL5
ASUS M3N-HT Deluxe/HDMI
Bios 3106 with ECC enabled
EVGA GTX 280 OC (Got Rid of SLI to reduce Power)
Windows 7 64 bit
Antec Nine Hundred
3Ware 3960SA-8I
2 Hitachi 640 GB + 1 WDC Blue 640 GB + 1TB Hitachi in RAID 5
1 2TB Backup Drive.
solstice is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 01:15 AM   #13
johan851
Insatiably Malcontent
Senior Member

 
johan851's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA

10 Year Badge
 
Anandtech might be calculating boot time after BIOS loads. I'm not sure. Boot time isn't a good way to compare different systems because it varies so much, but it is an interesting metric for two hard drives on an otherwise identical system. Of course, there are other much more important benchmarks.

__________________
ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 | 2500K @ 4.6GHz | 2x4GB Samsung DDR3 | GTX460 768mb
120GB Crucial M4 | 2x 2TB Samsung F4 | Seasonic S12 600w
AV-710 --> y2 DAC --> Custom M^3 --> Custom LM3875 ChipAmp --> Modula MTs
Dual Dell 2007WFP | Watercooled
johan851 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 04:44 AM   #14
Mjolnir
Member

 
Mjolnir's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia

 
If you wanna count 'boot times' I spose you'd do it from the windows loading screen or something. Because the rest beforehand is the bios working out wtf its doing.. I know mine takes ages. A lot longer than my older budget board (M2NMX-SE). My girlfriends family comp (piece of crap really) takes longer to boot overall, but the bios zooms through because shes' got no dedicated gpu, only 1 hdd, and 2 sticks of ram. Nothing fancy, no extra crap.

my old old 800 mhz celeron took a fair while to boot, but mainly due to windows boot time (98/xp). Then my next upgrade was to a 3500+, 1gb ram, etc. And it was 1-2 minutes (longer after time). And that suits me fine. Anything less than 2 minutes is acceptable for me, It really doesn't bother me at all.

It'd be nice if things loaded a bit faster though, like people said 'snappy', where my firefox from a fresh start takes a good 5-10 seconds to open for the first time. But it's still something I'm willing to live with.

...Back to topic. I'd go the larger space option. Like others said you wouldn't get those types of access/seek times, but do you really need it? Is it necessary to get that 'instant' feel?

Some people probably wouldn't even notice a significant enough jump from a decent mechanical drive to a SSD. Go the extra storage =D.

__________________
\m/ OverClockers mATX L33T Club \m/
Motherboard - Asus Maximus Gene V Z77
CPU - i5 2500K @ 4.5ghz 1.3v /w Corsair H60 SE + GT AP-13 /w Scythe Kaze Master Fan Controller (GT AP-13/AP 181)
RAM - 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 1600mhz.
GPU - Asus GTX 670 DCUII
Storage - Samsung 840 Pro 256GB + 2TB Seagate Cuda.
Case - Silverstone TJ08-E
PSU - Corsair HX650
OS - Windows 7 Ult 64
Peripherals - Leopold FC700R Graphite Brown MX + G500 Mouse
Screen(s) - Dell U2711
Audio - Audioengine 5+ + Audioengine D1 + Wharfdale SW150 /w Shure SRH 840 Headphones
Mjolnir is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 05:22 AM   #15
johan851
Insatiably Malcontent
Senior Member

 
johan851's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA

10 Year Badge
 
Quote:
...Back to topic. I'd go the larger space option. Like others said you wouldn't get those types of access/seek times, but do you really need it? Is it necessary to get that 'instant' feel?
I think it's the largest bottleneck for the instant feel. So...yes. Quite possibly.

Quote:
Some people probably wouldn't even notice a significant enough jump from a decent mechanical drive to a SSD.
My guess is that this is an upgrade that would improve "feel" significantly more than most. Nothing else in the system takes milliseconds to get something done - everything else is on the order of 1,000 - 1,000,000 times faster.

__________________
ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 | 2500K @ 4.6GHz | 2x4GB Samsung DDR3 | GTX460 768mb
120GB Crucial M4 | 2x 2TB Samsung F4 | Seasonic S12 600w
AV-710 --> y2 DAC --> Custom M^3 --> Custom LM3875 ChipAmp --> Modula MTs
Dual Dell 2007WFP | Watercooled
johan851 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 06:00 AM   #16
KTE
Member



Join Date: Sep 2008

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by creecher View Post
if im gonna spend 100 dollars on a wd 1tb caviar black, and 300 on an ssd, why dont i just buy 3 extra cb's and raid0 with 4 of them?
would that be faster?
Overall, far faster, far more consistent and far more reliable. Let alone the far higher capacity. Although striping isn't something you do if you seek reliability.

Even 3x striped are far too quick for one desktop enthusiast SSD in real usage.

Now if you talk prosumer/server market SSDs, then the ball game changes completely. Those things are fast and reliable, too good for anything on the desktop... and come with a similar far higher price too.
KTE is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 01:13 PM   #17
johan851
Insatiably Malcontent
Senior Member

 
johan851's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA

10 Year Badge
 
Quote:
Overall, far faster, far more consistent and far more reliable. Let alone the far higher capacity.
Can you quantify how the array would be faster, more consistent, and more reliable?

__________________
ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 | 2500K @ 4.6GHz | 2x4GB Samsung DDR3 | GTX460 768mb
120GB Crucial M4 | 2x 2TB Samsung F4 | Seasonic S12 600w
AV-710 --> y2 DAC --> Custom M^3 --> Custom LM3875 ChipAmp --> Modula MTs
Dual Dell 2007WFP | Watercooled
johan851 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 01:28 PM   #18
Badbonji

 
Badbonji's Avatar 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham, UK

 
Smaller files are faster generally with an SSD, but for copying and writing very large files, such as movie files, the Raid 0 mechanical's superior read and write usually win out. And as most files are small rather than large, an SSD will be quicker in general usage.

__________________
i7 3770K 4.5GHz 1.2V | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | 16GB TeamGroup Elite 1600MHz | GIGABYTE G1.Sniper M3 | EVGA GTX680 SC 1254/1500MHz | M4 256GB + 150GB Raptor | Corsair HX+ 850W | Antec 1200
i7 965 | 8GB OCZ Gold 1600MHz | GIGABYTE Extreme X58 | HD5450 | M4 64GB + 7TB | OCZ 500W
P9500 3.13GHz | 4GB 1000MHz DDR2 | Mobility HD4850 550/900MHz | 500GB
Badbonji is online now Benching Profile SETI Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 03:00 PM   #19
visbits
Member

 
visbits's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2009

 
Just so everyone knows, your NEVER going to see a performance increase with a read speed over 100MB/s for any thing general. The SSD's get to the data way faster and can read multiple things at once which is why they are the Hype. For large amounts of storage and the ability to just move big files back and forth raid will excel over and SSD but nothing will ever complete for raw seeks.

__________________
Using Ubuntu does not make you good with linux.

HEATWARE
visbits is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 09-05-09, 08:55 PM   #20
MongGrel
Member

 
MongGrel's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Clearwater FL

 
SSD's for an operating system are fantastic for an O/S just for the seek times, I'll get there yet but am still waiting.

Still running two RAID arrays here myself that are pretty fast they wouldn't touch a SSD MLC like the new intel ones out for an O/S I'm sure though.

Had a screw up lately and had to buy something I shouldn't have, the wife still a bit cranky, if nothing else they keep upgrading the SSD's Ill pick up some slightly slower ones in the future.

Can only drive the prices down over time I guess, I'm still working ok with whats in here I guess.

__________________
Mong Grel
Varying Amounts of Electronic Fun Type Thingies
ASUS P6T7 Bios 1001 / Intel i7 920 D0 @ 3.8 Ghz TRUE120Copper 2 X Noctua NF-P12 Push Pull
Corsair Dominator 3 X 2G DDR3-1600
2 X EVGA GTX 260 216 SLI / Olevia 747i 47" 1080P
WD Caviar Black 500GB(O/S)
2 X Raptor AFDF150 Matrix RAID0 (pagefile)
Areca 1210 IOP333 RAID 6 / 4 X 1Tb WD RE3's (storage)
Antec 1200 Artic Cool & Noctua fans/Antec CP-850 PSU
Win 7 Pro 64/PotPlayer X64 cloned to Olevia747i 1080P
5.1 Theater to oddball 600W Dual Amp system

Last edited by MongGrel; 09-05-09 at 09:06 PM.
MongGrel is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Storage
Storage SSDs, HDDs, CD/DVD/Bluray
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?