Musing on RAID and SSD ... and who needs a Raptor anyway?

Remove all ads!

There was a thing that stuck me today when I saw a 32GB Transcend Solid State Disk 2,5" SATA MLC offered in my online shop - special sale - for a rock bottom price of about 90 €. Immediately ideas popped into my mind, like getting one - no - two, four of them and putting them into a RAID! After all, I want to 'feel' the performance advantage of my new computer I had a vision of my new Computer completely booting up XP or VISTA in under a minute, and shutting down in 15 seconds, like back in the day when I ran Win98 SE on my Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB RAM.

Eventually, sanity and budgetary caution prevailed, and after reading three universally negative reviews for the product (it's like VERY SLOW and a disappointment generally ...), I accepted that this one was a crappy thing as a primary HDD and that not buying it would be a good idea.

Nevertheless, the idea of using SSD is appealing. I did some research and found this review on Tom's Hardware. The tables are impressive.

I am perfectly aware that, for the time being, SSD offer an atrocious GB/€ ratio. And as for now, they are small. But then, as for the part of your HD memory that is actually used to run your OS and primary application something like 32 MB would probably be sufficient, and those are the ones to be affordable first. Get two or four of those and you'll have a reasonable amount of disk space, and a quiet and very, very fast system - that also consumes less power and generates less heat, ameliorating cooling requirements and allowing for slower fan speeds and less noise.
Anyway, as far as buying such gadgets is concerned, I'm in no hurry at all, I mostly eye it as a Phase II of my Computer project Undeniably, there is a certain degree of interest in this with regard to bragging rights So I'd need a RAID controller (or do on-board chips like Intel’s ICH9R suffice?), which will cost something. And then, there is the price tag for the SSD. Unaffordable, for the time being. In any case, I imagine that I'd have two (four) SSD in the RAID, and one or two traditional SATA HDD on the SATA controller for large volume storage. For backup I'd then run regularly scheduled back-ups to (one of) the traditional HDD. Is that feasible? More important: Does it makes sense?

On a less geeky note, I can imagine an outstanding office PC, for instance, easily capable of multitasking, that uses a fanless 300W power supply, quieted case, passive CPU cooler, 45nm dual or quad core CPU with 2GB RAM on an ASUS G45 chipset MoBo and a single OCZ 32GB SSD for the OS and programs and a larger HDD for storage. I configured such a thing for about 700 (dual core)/800 (quad core) €. It would even support dual screens. Probably it would be barely audible when working. I imagine it to be quite agile in everyday use. Needless to say, that's the comp I'd wish to have at work.

But back to RAID, I am completely inexperienced with RAID and if someone has comments, wants to point out my utter ignorance or expose flaws in my case for SSD in RAID, or is willing to share his experiences with RAID or SSD, that would be most appreciated.

 

What I know about ssd's is that the second generation is leaving the factories. Beware on sale first gen.

 

I would suggest that you read the following document and anyone else who is interested in different RAID solutions, Hardware RAID vs. Software RAID. It is a short and fairly understandable document about the differences of different RAID implementations. Most home user motherboards have RAID implemented as the type 2 software RAID (Hybrid Model – Hardware-Assisted Software RAID). I can try to answer any questions that arise. I think that at least some people here on the forums are using software RAID. So they should be able to provide more feedback about system load and the like. In fact I would be interested in CPU usage during write operations, if anyone has statistics. SSD on RAID implementations is interesting too, I have to do some more research on that before commenting further. But personally I would stay away from all software RAID implementations.

As for my own RAID experiences, I have a RAID 5 setup running on my Linux server using the 3ware 9650SE-4LPML controller with a battery backup unit. If you want more info about the setup, ask away. The controller and battery cost about 400 € together if I remember correctly. So a proper hardware RAID setup is expensive. However, a setup like this is overkill for a normal home user. Actually I do not see the need for RAID at all. So you would do fine with a software RAID setup if you really want one.

 

As far as I am concerned I'd be perfectly happy with the higher speed a RAID 0 would give me. I don't want long boot-up times, and I'm tired of long installation times of ~30 min per game. Data security is (somewhat) secondary. Secondary means: Right now I also wouldn't have a complete data backup in case one of my drives crashes.

So I am thinking in terms of, more realistically than four SSD , getting some two 160GB Barracuda's and having a somewhat slower 320 GB drive as my back-up, off the RAID. That appears to offer a decent GB/€ ratio, and decent speed. Two Barracudas would probably be faster than a Raptor when used in RAID 0. I could, theoretically, buy a single 32/64 GB OCZ, and perhaps a large 320 to 640 GB HDD, and perhaps get myself another 32/64 GB OZC a little later. As for the price, the OZC in 32 GB are sold at about 130 €. A 150GB VelociRaptor sells at 160€. Two Barracudas and a back-up drive would cost me about exactly as much as a single Raptor. As for now, SSD aren't competitive. I try to think economical here and despite my enthusiasm for SSD, I accept the reality of my limited budged

What I found absolutely remarkable was the ability of RAIDed SSD to outperform even RAIDed Raptors. As far as reliability and performance is concerned, the aforementioned OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD 2.5”, actually a Samsung product, have been found to offer the best price/performance ratio from all current SSD in a Tom's Hardware review. If the OZS SSD outperform the Raptor in RAID 0 they probably outperform the Raptor when single as well.

As I am going to buy end October anyway, I can lean back comfortably, save money, watch prices and see what I'll do. As I said, I'm in no hurry.

 

The fastest hard drive is the Velocity Raptor SATA II with 320 GB. I have seen a friends computer setup with RAID 5 with three of these hard drives. His system was extremely fast. The price on the new raptor hard drives is $290. My friend's PC cost him close to $4000, but he also likes to play Crysis on his 50" LCD. Yeah, he has money to blow....

 

Well, the ~130 € OCZ Core Series SATA II 2.5" SSD - 64GB even in 32 GB sounds good as a solution with an additional storage HDD. Just look at those those data

• Seek time: less than 0.35ms
• Read: up to 120-143 MB/sec
• Write: up to 80-93 MB/sec

The speed is just awesome. Compare that to a Raptor:

• average seek time: 4,2ms, write time 4,7ms
• Read: up to 81 MB/sec
• Write: up to ~90 MB/sec

The only problem I'd have is that'd like to have those 2,5" drives somehow fixed in my case. I'd need a frame or something (stuff like that exists for 2,5" IDE drives) Now imagine a few of them in a RAID 0 array ...

Currently my thinking goes in the direction to get myself two RAID 0-ed Seagate ST3250310NS 250GB (Barracuda ES.2, 24/7) with 32MB Cache and 8ms. Excellent HDD. I presume that two of those in RAID 0 will likely be about equivalent to a single Raptor, with more disk space and a lower price. And since they're server HDD, they are certified for 24/7 use and ought to last, minimising risk of data loss.

If I get foolish later, I can then still get, say a single 64 GB SSD for my OS and games, or two 32/64 GB SSD in RAID 0, and use the Barracudas for storage ... yeah, sounds like a good plan.

 

Specs mean nothing for PCs as we all know; it is how the hardware or software performs for every day use. We all know how fast the raptor hard drives are, but how fast are the SSD for every day computing and is it worth the extra cost?

At $300 for a Velicoty Raptor with 300GB equals $1 per a GB. SSD are $150 for 32GB or $4.69 per a GB. Is the real world speed of a SSD worth the current pricing? Most likely not. Is a Velocity Raptor SATAII worth it; yes when compared to SSD but no when compared to a good SATAII HDD.

You can buy 250GB SSD but they run close to a grand, if not more.

 

What I like about SSD is their potential. The reviews so far have been enthusiastic. It's just that I am in no economical situation to just buy some and try them out. So I wait and see. As I said. I have time. I expect the price to fall dramatically over the next year as the technology is maturing. As for now, I'll start with something sensible: Those two very mature and fast Seagate 250GB 8ms/32MB cache server HDD

And as far as everyday use is concerned ... the probably lifespan in one of those reviews was approx 17 years. And don't get me started on speed, lack of wear and no noise due to no moving parts and then there is the low power consumption. The relatively small size isn't really a problem either, as long as the drives only reach 32 GB they're perfectly fine for an OS installation. You would want to have a conventional HDD for storage though. I mean, how many people have a Raptor as their primary HDD, and a slower HDD for storage?

 

I like the potential too that SDD offer but right now they are truly not worth their current value. I remeber reading a review comparing a 32GB SSD vs. the 150GB Raptor; the raptor took the cake in most the test; the expection was loading up Windows and basic 2D applications where the SSD was only miliseconds faster. That is why I tend right now dislike the price and perforamnce of a SSD.

If the newer SSD provide an increase in performance and the price is about 20% lower they would definitely be worth looking into and comparing to the Raptor 300GB SATAII drive.

Overall though, as we all know...There is no superior gain between a PATA, SATA or SATAII drive. The biggest difference for those drives are the speed of the drive.

As for SSD; I imagine as the system bus increase so would their over all speed.

 

What I never understood about SSDs are their physical size/storage size ratio. If you bust one of them open, there will be a PCB with fat memory chips on both sides... Great, that takes up about 1cm of space. Why not fill the rest of the space with multiple PCBs that are stacked? Manufacturers could instantly double or even triple storage capacities. But IMO, they're milking the price markup for a new technology for far too long.

Locally, Intel and Micron have a joint venture, called IM Flash. They've built a massive wafer fab to make...you guessed it...flash memory about 50 miles south of Salt Lake City. IIRC, the fab *still* isn't operating at full capacity, mainly because microchip manufacturing equipment is extremely expensive, and is a b**** to get quall'ed for production. Once that plant starts pumping out product at full capacity, I hope to see prices fall. Oh, and if you're wondering who Micron is...they own Crucial and Lexar...so they have some leverage on pricing.

I probably won't get a SSD until the capacities are over 100GB, and I'd like to them offer SATA 6Gbit/s...which should be common (at least on enthusiast mobos) by the time SSDs hit 100GB. Can you imagin 4 100GB SSDs in a RAID 0 all connected via SATA 6Gbit/s?!?

 

Kitrax they do sell SDD over 100GB; they make a 250GB but for one 250GB SSD drive you could build yourself a new SLI computer with a 22" LCD included.

 

I am pondering, reconsidering my storage options (again).

The v2 of those shiny OCZ SSDs has popped up in shops, and they are even better than the current generation. But pricier, of course. Still, I expect prices for them to drop in the next half year. If I wait, and get me one or two SSD for or after Christmas, I'll get more for my money. So, after considering that, I am probably better served with buying a single Seagate 750 GB server HDD with 32MB cache now, rather than the two smaller ones in RAID, and just wait. I will be generally cheaper, too, and offer me more GB/€ when compared to the RAIDed two Seagate 250GB server discs with 32MB cache.

While my system certainly could be faster with the two smaller ones in a RAID (couldn't it always?), it will be fast anyway, especially when compared to my current system, and I can be happy when upgrading it, soonish, and take delight in anticipation of future upgrades

Fun!

 

@Ragusa

I'd love to compare my systems real world performance (ie time spent loading windows etc) to someone else with a similar setup. I've had a RAID 0 setup comprised of two 320GB Seagate 7200.10 16MB hard drives for over a year, and um, I cant say I'm bowled over. I mean, my PC is fast. I'm just not sure its THAT fast, or whether its fast because of the CPU and RAM or the hard drives. I havent seen anything that me think, "Wow, I've never seen hard drive access this fast".

As I said though, I have little to compare it to, so individual results may vary.

 

I would like that too, because it would involve bragging but I am sort of torn between my options:

I am truly excited about the potential of SSD. I want SSD drives, for the speed alone. Nevermind the prices, in the sizes I have in mind - 30 to 64GB max - that would be still tolerable, if indeed the speed gain is indeed what the reviews promise. Of course, I'd love to have RAIDed SSD for the expected speed and bragging rights. I cannot afford SSD now I think. If prices get to 120 € for the 30GB OCZ v2 versions (around Christmas perhaps?), twin SSD become doable for me. So, If want I go down that very intriguing route later, what I ought to buy now is a large fast HDD, and that 750GB 32MB cache HDD Seagate is about the best mix of price, performance, size and probable durability that I've seen so far. If I get two 30GB OCZ v2 I'd have enough space for my OS and applications and a game or two, and I'd carve out a little backup partition on the big one, set up a back-up/ imaging routine and I'll be fine in the (hopefully unlikely) case of a crash.

If I want to go towards twin 250GB 32MB cache Seagate HDD RAID then we can compare, sure, but it's just that I think the other variant is probably the more prosing route.

Anyway, I am still undecided. I may still change my mind if I read a particularly devastating review about SSD, or if friends credibly warn me of committing an utter folly

Anyway, on a related note, I did make a decison for my MoBo and it'll be, ta-dah, the ASUS P5Q-E (compared it with the Deluxe, and the latter basically offered two more SATA cables and was otherwise identical)

 

I think This might be a good read for anyone considering purchasing a SSD.

 

Hmmm...

My hunch is in 2009 Intel will be launching there own gaming machine.

1) NEW CPU/Chipset to be released
2) NEW GPU to be released - supposely faster than any GPU on the market
3) NEW HDD - Fastest HDD for gaming

It would not surprise me if Intel decides to create a motherboard with a build in GPU, CPU, and HDD.

The only last thing they need is RAM; does anyone know if Intel is entering into the business of making RAM?

 

Prices for SSD have been falling, and while capacity is still very moderate for an acceptable price, they are getting 'relatively affordable' now. A 30GB 'basic' from OCZ SSD I have been eyeing half a year ago today cost then € 160. It now goes for ~ € 100 in a good shop. Which means that in June or so I might actually be able to go for 'Project SSD RAID'

Just one thing: I have an Asus P5Q-E P45 board. Will my board be able to use the bandwidth and speed to the fullest, or will it bottleneck the SSD? From what I read on-board RAIDs are limited by SATA channel speeds, which in my case would be 300MB/s, per channel. So, buying anything faster than that would be nonsense, correct? That means I could, with current SSD, take full advantage of the technology?

What I have in mind is OCZ's V2 (170r/98w) or Vertex series (200 r/160w), minimum capacity 60GB. In my shop the 30GB versions of both are priced at about € 100 to 120 now.

Anyone here who has experience in this?