To SSD or not to SSD and to TRIM or not...and RAID0 or not...

I'm in a dilema.
I use my PC primarily as a development workstation (build, debug, small files like html/css/js/.cs code, libs, dlls.....) and as a gaming rig.
At this moment I have 2x WD Velociraptor 300HLFS in RAID0 with 4K stripe.

It's a fine drive(s), but I've been experiencing slow seek times that occur when I rebuild my projects and debug: my stuff just goes slow, drives need to find, open, create... and that is noticeable and irritating lately because when you push F5 (debug) every 30 seconds, and wait 5 seconds for an operation because of a slow drive, it hurts.
I've been told an SSD would make a nice difference because of zero seek time.

Well. If that is true, I will get an SSD.

BUT.

I have a problem.

As we know, SSD drives drastically loose performance over time, so there is TRIM and there is this Samsung controller method that allegedly does the same thing but, unlike TRIM, works in RAID.

I guess I won't benefit much from RAID because I will work mostly with files much smaller than max read/write which is 200ish/100ish. I occasionally encode/decode video (cca every 3 days) but I can leave that to VR's in RAID if SSDs and VRs on the same controller would make no problems?

So. I've been told Intel X25-M 80/160GB (Gen2) is "the best", but it supports only 200/70 R/W which seems slower than 250/200 from Crucial M225 or Patriot Torqx M28.

I have 2 questions then:

1. Go with 1 128GB SSD
2. Go with 2 64GB SSD in RAID0

Also, go with TRIM - Intel X25-M or Crucial M225 and not RAID or Patriot Torqx M28 that uses Samsung controller that does not support TRIM, but has its own garbage collection method.

I don't care for the price in this case, but would like to go with the best solution for my usage.
Loosing drive performance after some time is not acceptable as I don't want to wipe drives every once in a while and reinstall, so, yes, I would go either:
TRIM with single Intel or Crucial or Patriot
or
RAID0 and 2xTorqx in RAID0

or of that TRIM doesn't matter, I'd go with 2x any drives... if RAID0 would give any benefit at all in the first place?

Thanks.

i have a single 120GB agility and i like it, but affter cebit the sandforce SSDs will be out and those are much faster than the indi ones and they have a trim like feature on the SSD

If you are using an SSD for anything mission critical go for an Intel. Monitor your queue depth. (From the Performance Monitor in Vista or 7) If it is low I'd stick with a single SSD.

Don't be suckered by high sequential speeds, unless that is specifically what you want. By the sound of it you want small random reads/ writes

Patriot Torqx has TRIM-like feature on itself and it also works in RAID.
If their method is like TRIM, perf. wise, then I'd sure go with dual Torqxs in RAID0.
I guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

If you are using an SSD for anything mission critical go for an Intel. Monitor your queue depth. (From the Performance Monitor in Vista or 7) If it is low I'd stick with a single SSD.

Don't be suckered by high sequential speeds, unless that is specifically what you want. By the sound of it you want small random reads/ writes

---

From what I see, it's quite as I've presumed: I would hardly benefit from RAID0 array as during work, my highest I/O speed is 40MB/s and my Queue Length for my drive is up to 0.01 most of the time...

The best what I would get is from the access time that goes to 0.1 or 0.2.

Why Intel for mission critical? (Or Kingston which is identical drive, right?)
Intel has drastically slower write than Crucial or Patriot...

Data Reliability, you said "I don't care for the price in this case, but would like to go with the best solution for my usage." then get the X25-E 64GB SLC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

Data Reliability, you said "I don't care for the price in this case, but would like to go with the best solution for my usage." then get the X25-E 64GB SLC.

---

Interestingly, I recall an X25-M G2 BER of 10^-16 whereas the X25-E sat at 10^-15.

There are limits to "I don't care". :) ----- Here X25-M/Kingston 160GB already cost $800, and X25-E is even less than 80 for $1400.

What I'm looking at now is:

1. Single X25-M 160GB G2 / Kingston 160GB G2 (same drive different name?) 250/70 R/W
2. Single Crucial 128GB 250/200 R/W
3. Single Patriot Torqx 128GB 200/200 R/W
4. Dual Intel X25-M 80GB - one for system, one for projects

The option #4 sucks a bit because my tools are already ~60GB. A full drive doesn't sound good, tho I may be wrong in case of SSDs. Also, 80GB may prove too small... so probably 1 or 2 or 3.

This write speed "problem" with Intels buggs me..

im not a fan of patriot affter having to deal with their rma process. and for data stability ive had 2 SSDs die on me and on both they could read but not write to the drive, the only time that ive heard of not being able to read from the drive is if u get a firmware corruption.

and wait for sandforce they have way more iops and 4k read/write than the intel or the indi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speederlander

interestingly, i recall an x25-m g2 ber of 10^-16 whereas the x25-e sat at 10^-15.

---

Correct, but slc / 1, mlc / 2, 3, 4 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naxeem

This write speed "problem" with Intels buggs me..

---

With Trim it gets as high as 100.

The new OCZ Limited Edition is just what you are looking for R/W 250 / 250. Take zazanbar's quote "affter cebit the sandforce SSDs will be out and those are much faster than the indi ones and they have a trim like feature on the SSD"

If you want reliability = Intel, for anything else OCZ Sandforce's line.

If you are going Intel then get just 1 80GB and wait until December, everything will likely be doubled, problem about the 80GB is maximum write speed is only 80 whereas 160GB = 100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

and wait for sandforce they have way more iops and 4k read/write than the intel or the indi.

---

He is not looking for 4k :)

SSD for me is access time and 4k random speed. Finally OCZ understood it and now is selling SSD's with prices based on its 4k random speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naxeem

As we know, SSD drives drastically loose performance over time, so there is TRIM and there is this Samsung controller method that allegedly does the same thing but, unlike TRIM, works in RAID.

---

Samsung has firmware on the SSD that looks at the bitmap file on your NTFS partition. It uses that bitmap file(which is unique to NTFS only) to "TRIM" the memory on your SSD. To recap, the partition must be NTFS.

In a RAID environment, the NTFS partitions will exist only inside if a RAID array container(I don't know what the real name for it is). Also, the bitmap file will not reflect the actual data on the partition because the bitmap will be a map of both SSDs as 1 drive. If you are not using NTFS, then the auto-trim will not work at all.

In short, Samsung's auto-trim feature does not function as you expect, and definitely not in RAID.

Why not just create a RAM drive and work from RAM? Maybe set up an automatic script that copies the contents of the ramdrive to the hard drive on shutdown or something. Maybe 30 min backups automatically. Before SSD I was resourceful and used RAM disks for situations like this.

*I remember reading that the Samsung firmware, due to either a bug or by design, would only auto-trim the first NTFS partition it found. I could not provide a link to support this claim.

[QUOTE=naxeem;4272780]
1. Single X25-M 160GB G2 / Kingston 160GB G2 250/70 R/W QUOTE]

The G2 160GB is 100mb/s not 70mb/s and in practice you get more like 110mb/s. SSD's are a trade off. If you want to write huge sequential files all day don't get an Intel drive. If you want to write and read small random files all day get an Intel.

@ Speederlander.

Just to clarify. For reliability I think Intel are the best of a bad bunch. SSD's are obviously still evolving and each evolution is significantly different so this is nowhere near mature technology. TBH I don't know if I would use ssd if it was mission critical stuff that I was working on.

By 4K you mean small 4K files/default cluster size on NTFS?
If by 4K you mean "small files" than yes, that is what I'm looking for: in programming, rarely my files get big. Usually these are a happy bunch of small files.

Mission critical? Well, tbh, everything I do I consider mission-critical because a breakdown of an OS drive causes my 1-2 days blocked for work (reinstall, re-setup).
That is why I keep 12-hour backups.

I would certainly backup my SSD completely to a RAID1 2TB+2TB WD Greens every 12 hours.

So, tbh, I dont care THAT much for SSDs reliabilty if it has anything near classic mechanical drives.

From all this I've gotten to one thing: RAID0 will be a no-no. TRIM ftw.

That leaves me with:
Intel 160GB or Crucial 128GB for roughly the same price. (As Torqx does not support TRIM).

I would setup SSD for system and development work and leave my VRs in R0 for video encoding/decoding I do, plus RAID1 WD Greens for backup.

If I can't really profit from Crucial's write speed (which is double the Intel's) as I don't need sequential write, then Intel looks better, right? For it's better controller that performs better than Crucial in 4K area?

Ah, and, is it smart to put VM's on an SSD? VMs are one big file that acts like a hard drive virtually and SSD should solve biggest VM problem: I/O speed.

^ this should help you decide. If gives quite a good round up review of the current state of play, including info on the Crucial drive.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=3747&p=1

Finally my decision goes to SSD 160GB INTEL G2 for random speed which I actually need most.

Thanks everyone for help!