These SSDs would go with my ARC-1231ML2G raid controller.
Printable View
These SSDs would go with my ARC-1231ML2G raid controller.
BAH!! How do I edit my poll options(never done a poll b4)?
X25-E 32GB x4 pretty obviously. :shrug:
Slightly more space (128 vs 120) and at least double the bandwidth of the other two options.
same space... I would have to say the four x25's too.
four of them or i would go with the 256 gb x4 from intel (i think have it)
Isn't the X25-M faster than the E?
It appears so in the majority of real world booting and app/game loading ect.Quote:
Originally Posted by YMAA
I would actually go for 5x (6x if card can handle it) 80gb x25m's or even 3x 160gb x25m's without the raid card.
Interesting. Any threads here discussing that?Quote:
Originally Posted by YMAA
4x X25-M.. the E is a waste of money.
What will these drives be mainly used for?
OS drives (with probably mutilple OSes)/Games/Video encoding. I know the SLC drives are way overkill for what it is gonna be used for, but I have the money and since the SLC drives have come way down in price, was just wondering whether to go SLC that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
Your not going to be able to take advantage of sustained write speed with that workload, it looks to me they are all CPU & GPU bound in terms of write speed. As someone above said, I think an SLC would actually just be a waste of money for what you are going to use it for.Quote:
Originally Posted by tekjunkie
If I personally had $1500 right now to spend on storage, I would get 3x x25-m 160gb on ICH10R. You will have all the write performance you need, plus you will have allot more space to but more data on your SSD's instead of HDD.
Or wait 6 months and spend the same amount of money and you should get some better performance and possibly be able to ditch you hdd completely.
I went with X25-M 80GBx4. Thanks for all your input guys
4 x X25-E 32gb no doubts about it. Probably the most stable SSD platform out there atm, speed would be great if put into raid, no actually it'd be sick.
Good choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by tekjunkie
14 1TB HDDs (500GB platters) in RAID 0+1
:P
That's how people end up wasting their money! 4x raid 0 looks to reduce loading performance (the thing that makes your OS feel snappy) by a surprising margin Sometimes by as much as 12-15%.Quote:
Originally Posted by gatecrasherlok
Unless you wanted to copy and paste files to the same partition all day you would have to be a fool to go for this option with his workload.
http://techreport.com/r.x/intel-x25e-raid/time-boot.gif
Ignore this one due to raid card.
http://techreport.com/r.x/intel-x25e...load-doom3.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/intel-x25e...oad-farcry.gif
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16291/1
Why do you think the E is a waste of money? Do you mean in terms of benefit for desktop use? The E & the M use the same controller but the E is tuned differently. The different tuning of the controller and use of SLC allows much better sustained writes and heavy use with a minuscule performance penalty to the M in typical desktop use.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
probably because in "normal use" no one would write so much that 2x X-25M's would be overwhelmed, much less 2x X25-E's and the M's have the benefit of being slightly faster in reads I believe and giving you much more storage.
The E is a waste of money for the OPs usage patterns.Quote:
Originally Posted by audienceofone
The E only makes sense when used in DB servers that are 24/7 pounded with requests and the like, where their superior write performance, IOPS rating and lifespan will pay off.
For standard or even extensive desktop use, the M will give you so much more for your money.
Also what's causing the reduction in OS/App related performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
a) Lower small file read's that happens when you raid
b) Raid Card latency
c) Combination of above
d) Symptom of varying performance degradation on each of the drives (Always having to wait for the slowest drive)
e) Something else entirely
It is mainly B I think. They would see better numbers with ICHXR. At least that's how it was for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhys
May I add those bootup results are total crap IMO?
If I compare bootup times of my Velociraptor and a single Supertalent Ultradrive, the Ultradrive is like 15-20 seconds faster loading Server 08 + all tray apps (Catalyst, AV, etc). Now the X25-M is at least as good as Indilinx-based drives, usually a bit faster.
is not time for ssd..... for now....
Yeh good spot!Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
Also looks like the machine they are using is ancient.