Kingston V200 128gb or Raid 0 Kingston v100 60gb?

kullzer · #1 03-01-12, 09:08 PM

Hi.

A friend is putting up a new pc and he asked me for help.

He was gonna put a 128gb v200 and i was thinking about 2x v100 in raid 0.

wich one should i recommend?

ruthless_villain · #2 03-01-12, 09:17 PM

v200 its a 6gb/s drive and its prolly cheaper

kullzer · #3 03-01-12, 09:25 PM

i tought the raid speeds would compensate for that

ruthless_villain · #4 03-01-12, 09:31 PM

Im not sure tbh but if i was you i would just go for the single drive

kullzer · #5 03-01-12, 09:52 PM

im gonna let him decide xD

thx for the help

elfisster · #6 12-02-12, 03:42 AM

I've very similar problem and I've a question. I'm considering buying 2 60GB SSD's and making raid0 however it just struck my mind, wouldn't this kind of thing hit SATA's III ceiling? Current ssd's do way over 500mb in read/write speads so putting them together it would be over 1gb read/write but that's way over SATA III capabilities or am I missing something? And if in fact it's over so how people do get over 1gb read/write when raiding 2 SSD's? Thanks in advance.

Diablo · #7 12-02-12, 02:45 PM

The drives are connected to the motherboard, so each drive maxes out at 600MBps, not the whole array. To saturate the connection each drive would need to have over 600MBps read/write. The individual connection, not the total is the limiting factor. That said, RAID 0 on SSDs is an exercise in epeen waving. The risk of losing your data is increased and you lose TRIM, so I would say it is kind of pointless...unless you genuinely put massive files on your SSD as your main storage and can't wait for the transfer times.

elfisster · #8 12-02-12, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diablo

The drives are connected to the motherboard, so each drive maxes out at 600MBps, not the whole array. To saturate the connection each drive would need to have over 600MBps read/write. The individual connection, not the total is the limiting factor. That said, RAID 0 on SSDs is an exercise in epeen waving. The risk of losing your data is increased and you lose TRIM, so I would say it is kind of pointless...unless you genuinely put massive files on your SSD as your main storage and can't wait for the transfer times.

Thank you for reply and clearance. As why I want SSD's in raid0 is just because I'm not worried about data loss at all. It's my gaming rig and if it would make no difference if one of them would fail. The thing is that price of 2x 60GB vs 1x120 is ~5EU for me yet it doubles the performance.(working in wholesale has its own benefits!) As of trim, I've heard that intel boards now do have support for trim in raid0 and even if they don't garbage collection does the trick as well. Lack of trim in raid0 plagued first two generations of SSD's, the 3rd one is completely other story.

S_I_N · #9 13-02-12, 12:39 AM

raid em you wont be unhappy i run 2 64 slower C300's in raid 0 and OMFG!!