Single 512GB 830 or 2 x 256GB in RAID 0 ??

[Syd]

As the title implies, i'm not sure whether to go for one or the other, it was an easier choice when I looked last month as the 512 was less than double the cost of the 256's.
BUT now the 512 is about £50 more, so it's got me thinking!
I intend to use the drive/drive as a windows partition and a games partition. Is it still a real chore installing an o/s on a raid array ? The last time I did it was with a pair of 36GB IBM Deskstars!!!!

[jim]

I'd get the single drive. It'll be a lot less hassle.

[wasabi]

Does your motherboard support RAID 0 in hardware?

Personally I wouldn't stripe the drives unless you have something to run ridiculously regular backups of the whole mirrored pair (Acronis or the likes).

[Syd]

Yes mobo does support, however you have both answered the question in the same way that I had logically thought about it ! Thanks

[spoon_]

Another fact to consider is that without proper RAID controller your motherboard will bottleneck two 830s in RAID0. Big time.

[crimpshrine]

I would go with the bigger HD in this case.

[cerebral744]

the 830 are already one of the fastest drives in ssd world a single 256 would be more then enough for most thing and add a big mech drive for storage

[Oswald]

Sounds like overexpensive storage. I'ld just get a SSD boot disk and a mechanical drive for storage. That's what I did. I can't think of 512Gb of data that needs quick loading... Windows and a couple of games ok, but the rest can go on a cheaper drive.

[directhex]

Don't use RAID with SSDs.

For one thing, very very few controllers do TRIM passthrough, so performance will drop off massively. You'll also be CPU-limited for performance, rather than the SSD doing performance.

Also, there's no difference - the physical implementation of most SSDs is to have a board with a bunch of empty spaces for memory chips, which can be accessed in parallel. More chips = more performance, and the number of chips is dictated by size (which is why 240G SSDs are faster than identical 120G SSDs with the same firmware)

[drakioned]

I think it's only worthwhile if you have a motherboard that supports TRIM under RAID 0, otherwise, avoid the hassle.

[Syd]

Thanks for the input, I have an 80gb x25 as a boot drive ATM, and the rest on caviar blk, but wanted to get everything on ssd; have a windows partition and a program/games partition on a 512gb, hence the thought of striping 2 830s to make a 512gb ssd for £260. Maybe I'll leave the raid and wait for the 512's to get to the £200 - £250 level

[D0T-C0M]

Don't use RAID with SSDs.

For one thing, very very few controllers do TRIM passthrough, so performance will drop off massively. You'll also be CPU-limited for performance, rather than the SSD doing performance.

Also, there's no difference - the physical implementation of most SSDs is to have a board with a bunch of empty spaces for memory chips, which can be accessed in parallel. More chips = more performance, and the number of chips is dictated by size (which is why 240G SSDs are faster than identical 120G SSDs with the same firmware)

There is no official TRIM support on series 5 chipset but if you want TRIM enabled on most ASUS / ASRock / MSi (P67/Z68/Z77) check out rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?p=1337101257#post1337101257

I cannot post URLs till post count > 5 so just copy paste the link into your browser

[D0T-C0M]

With the updated RAID OROM and proper rst drivers TRIM is now available for series 5 chipset. I'm putting my 2 samsung 830 256gb SSDs in a RAID0 tonight.

[quady]

Harder to use TRIM with SSDs in RAID, so out of the two go for the single drive. But do you need 500gb at that speed? Much cheaper to get a 240gb SSD and a 3TB hard disc.

[diamondmines]

RAID it, it would out perform any single SSD out there.

[kalniel]

RAID it, it would out perform any single SSD out there.

Don't RAID it. You get increased resilience and longevity with a single larger drive, and the performance increase with RAID won't be noticeable.

edit: oh, old thread. Thank you Mr reviver.