PDA

View Full Version here: : SSD drives


icytailmark
16-05-2013, 01:51 PM
hi guys im just wondering if many people use SSD hard drives to store their data on. Which is better 2 ssd drives in raid 0 or a single drive is fine?.

Pi
16-05-2013, 03:00 PM
Generally you don't use the SSD to STORE your data on, but keep your operating system/applications installed on the SSD whilst your data is stored on disk drives. It is definitely worth an upgrade and I would consider no alternative in a new pc.

As for RAID 0, there is little to no noticeable performance improvement. It does however double your chance of drive failure... I would recommend a single SSD.

chrisp9au
16-05-2013, 04:20 PM
SSD for operating system and programs, normal hard drive for data.
I've done it on my desktop, running Windows 8 Pro no worries.
Done it on the laptop, moving the DVD drive to external, and installing a 2nd hard drive.
Boots fast, loads programs fast, excellent upgrade!
Work out how big the SSD needs to be to just hold your operating system and your program files, then add maybe 25%~30%. You don't need a huge SSD drive.

Cheers, and good luck with your upgrade! :thumbsup:

Chris

04Stefan07
16-05-2013, 04:39 PM
You can store your data on an SSD however this is impractical. Number one it will be VERY expensive (a 250GB Samsung drive goes for around $180 therefore if you have terabytes of data this could cost you thousands of dollars) and number two you do not need SSD data transfer speeds for storage, a simple classic hard drive is plenty.

As said below storing the OS and vital applications on an SSD is best with your storage on your hard drives. My desktop has an SSD with the OS and applications on it and I got an SSD in my Macbook Pro for everything.

gb_astro
16-05-2013, 07:41 PM
Tom's Hardware has just posted a single/raid comparison:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

gb.

Earl
18-05-2013, 10:05 AM
Mark,

I work in a software developement company and we've had nothing but trouble with SSD drives. We're no longer using them for storing anything "critical", ie where if it breaks, people can't work.

There's no doubt some good ones out there. The trouble is finding out which ones they are!

Cheers,

Earl

Wavytone
18-05-2013, 11:48 AM
If you're ging to use SSD, make darn sure you have a reliable backup on an external HDD.
When SSD's fail you will probably lose everything in them, the files are unrecoverable/hopelessly corrupted.

As per below 2 SSD's configured as RAID0 merely doubles the likelihood of a failure.

Paul Haese
18-05-2013, 12:54 PM
I have been using SSD's for avi data capture on a 2.8mp camera. Works perfectly. Capture then get rid of the data onto a long term storage device. I just want it for the capture speed.

tlgerdes
19-05-2013, 06:34 AM
Yeah as Paul said, they are great for high I/O data accumulation, working space for things like image stacking/processing, but not economical for bulk storage. Most people who do use them including corporates use then that way and have it backended onto traditional disk.

Garbz
19-05-2013, 07:18 AM
RAID0 works on SSDs just like any other drive. You get double the performance out of them. The problem is that with the insane speeds SSDs already produce often the bottleneck isn't the SSD itself but rather other inefficient operating system calls. This is shown clearly on the Tom's Hardware link above where any synthetic test shows RAID0 with nearly double the performance, yet windows takes just as long to boot and applications take just as long to load.

One thing no one has mentioned which is a BIG MINUS, is that RAID controllers currently do not support the TRIM command. TRIM is a critical command on SSDs which allows the operating system to tell the drive which blocks aren't in use after a delete. SSDs unlike normal drives have crippling performance when it comes to re-writing data as opposed to writing an empty block. Without TRIM support your SSD (especially an SSD which is nearly full) will quickly start degrading in performance, and in the end the only way to get full speed back out of it is to use the manufacturer's software reset the drive which also wipes everything.


So in summary, don't do RAID in any form on an SSD unless you're going to spend thousands on your RAID controller to get one that supports TRIM.

Tandum
19-05-2013, 08:30 AM
Intel 7 series raid controllers support tim.

migel_prado
20-05-2013, 04:20 PM
A single large solid state drive is better than two smaller ssd's in a Raid array,RAID0 might be a money-saving solution, but it increases the chance of a failure.

Meru
20-05-2013, 06:17 PM
Hey Mark,

To answer your question in short one single drive is definitely better. In long, Raid 0 wont make a difference unless you also have a motherboard & RAM which wont cause a bottleneck. Once you go SSD (assuming you haven't yet) you will find that A) you can never, ever go back to the normal HDDs & B) they are a massive pain to deal with. TRIM is extremely important so research that before diving into anything.

I've gone through about 2 or 3 SSDs in the last year or so, they kept failing on me and it was a really difficult to keep having to install my programs and preferences again and again. However just before the last time it failed, I took a whole image of the drive and stored it elsewhere. When the drive failed, I simply loaded the image back on and volia problem solved. Every 2 months I know take images again and again just incase. I strongly urge you to do the same.

I was willing to put up with all this because I always bought them from a reputable computer retailer, and it was extremely easy to send them back for repairs/replacement through the retailer. They took care of everything! So dont always buy from the cheapest place; plus every time they replace, its a faster newer version of the drive hehe.

As everyone has suggested, DO NOT keep any files you are not prepared to lose on the SSD. I have two other normal HDDs that serve to store everything personal & important, SSD is only for windows and programs. Hope this helps!

LightningNZ
20-05-2013, 07:23 PM
I have SSDs in my home PC (windows), work PC (Linux) and work laptop (Mac). In short - they rock!

I haven't heard of many problems in the large 1.5 generations of SSDs to hit the market. My old OCZ Vertex 2 died in my home PC after only 3 months, but they were known to be a bit dodgy and I was (sort of) a fool to be an early adopter. It was replaced with a newer and faster SSD without charge by Techbuy (who I'd bought all my PC kit from).

For doing your imaging processing on they are magic. My PCs are lightning fast. For a laptop the effect is even greater if you hibernate your computer - super fast saves from memory.

Personally I think the "sweet spot" is a 250 GB disk for around the $220 mark, though you can probably do better. The Samsung 840 series is very popular and successful at the moment http://www.techbuy.com.au/p/210272/HDD_SOLID_STATE_DRIVES_-_IDE/Samsung/MZ-7TD250BW.asp. I definitely think you should shop around.

Hope this helps,
Cam

04Stefan07
31-05-2013, 12:40 PM
+1. I got the 250GB 840 series in my Mac. According to the Blackmagicdesign Disk Speed Test app I get just over 250MB/s write speed and just over 500MB/s read speed.

Poita
31-05-2013, 12:41 PM
I have over 200 SSDs installed through work over the past 3 years. So far not a single failure among the intel or crucial drives. Other brands we have had failures (OCZ worst, also had Samsung and Patriot drives fail). We only install Crucials or Intels now.
Had plenty of standard HDDs fail over the past few years. Traditional drives seem to have become far less reliable in the last 6 years or so.

04Stefan07
31-05-2013, 12:58 PM
I agree about Samsung failing even though I got one in my Mac.

Over the years I have had the following Samsung products.
- Samsung Jet mobile (touchscreen failed, got replaced now mobile has failed entirely).
- Samsung Blu Ray drive for PC (could not read disks properly, got it replaced with another of the same model and the exact same problem. Got it replaced a 2nd time but with an LG one and works perfectly! It must have been a faulty batch of Samsung drives).
- Samsung 24" LED computer monitor (2 dead pixels only after 2 weeks!).

These failures have put me off Samsung and I think they are unreliable products (even though everyone thinks they are the best now that they are strong in the TV and mobile (Galaxy S3-4 and Note) space. When I say that they are unreliable people often say I am crazy :lol:.

It's one of those products I have had bad experiences with therefore stay clear of them however the Samsung SSD 840 series I got has been fantastic so far. I took a risk buying my 4th Samsung product but at a price of $189 at the time I could not resist!

If the drive doesn't fail it might make me think a bit more highly of their unreliable products.

acropolite
31-05-2013, 06:26 PM
FWIW the Samsung 840 is warranted for 3 years, get the 840 pro model and the warranty is 5 years.

pw
31-05-2013, 06:34 PM
The Intel SSDs are a good choice for performance and reliability.

LightningNZ
31-05-2013, 08:48 PM
They are also quite expensive, but if you need reliability, sure they're tops. If you're purchasing for enterprise-level I/O buffering then the Intel S3700 is simply the best you can buy right now.

Even so, if an SSD dies within warranty, it should only ever be an inconvenience. If you lose data off one then you aren't backing up properly.

-Cam

Poita
01-06-2013, 04:06 PM
If you lose an entire night's planetary catpures it feels more than inconvenient. They can die in the middle of using them.

But I have found standard platter Hard Drives to be less reliable than SSDs of late.
The intel SSDs are only a few dollars more and well worth it.

Garbz
01-06-2013, 08:52 PM
So can any drive. They can just spontaneously die for no reason. But what is more likely, a laptop which is outside and potentially susceptible to bumps, drops, etc causing the sudden death of an intricate electromechanical device? Or some chips with no moving parts giving up for no reason in the middle of their life?

Tandum
04-06-2013, 01:03 AM
I have ssd drives is several yellow cab data base machines across town.
Twas the only way to get the crap software to respond properly.
2 years + and no failures.

Yes backups are there if they fail.

Poita
07-06-2013, 05:13 AM
Oh I'd vote for the SSD to survive. Was just pointing out that backups aren't always possible.

I am a total SSD convert, but I spend the extra to get intel or crucial drives these days.

jamiep
07-06-2013, 06:58 AM
SSD drives are great - but when they drop their bundle they do so in style ... an old mechanical drive if a control board failed etc you could find a like model and swap components to get the data off - SSD's you're much more dependent on backups. Having said that if you put a pair in and mirror, more often than not you'll have a backup in the event of a failure.

They're soooooooo much faster it's becoming a must have IMO.

I'm also pretty confident the latest platter drives are a case of engineered to cost/fail - if you pick one up they're a fraction of the weight of previous drives (plastic bodies etc, cheap cost of manufacture = decreased lifetime).

If you purchase high reliability and high speed server drives (mechanical) they're like bricks in comparison, so the cuts are coming from somewhere!

icytailmark
07-06-2013, 12:17 PM
i just purchased a samsung 840 pro 256gb. They are getting great reviews. im gunna stick my OS on there and a few apps. I will store most of my data on a 1tb regular sata drive. Thanks for everyones feedback.

acropolite
07-06-2013, 08:41 PM
There's been quite a bit of dialog on SSD performance, but no mention of the associated hardware requirements to achieve that performance.

To get the advertised transfer rates on the Samsung 840Pro for example, you need a very good SATA 3 controller. Quite a few of the controllers on recent motherboads, despite being SATA 3, have abysmal performance, the Marvel 9128 SATA 3 chipset on my Gigabyte I7 board is slower than the SATA 2 interfaces on the motherboard.

I've investigated aftermarket cards, but the only PCI slot suitable on the motherboard is used by my video card, the performance demands for add on PCI sata 3 cards are very high. I'll be looking at replacing a perfectly good i7 (socket 1156) and motherboard to get the full performance from the 840Pro, as soon as the latest socket change happens (due over the next few weeks apparently)
In the meantime, I'll install the 840 on a SATA port and take a slight hit on performance, not as bad as the benchmark figures would suggest from what I've read.

dpastern
08-06-2013, 12:28 PM
As others have said, o/s and applications on the SSD, data on an ordinary drive.

The beauty with SSDs is that they tend to only fail on the writing side of things, so if the drive stuffs up, you can always read it and get the data off, unlike with an ordinary drive (barring physical damage to the SSD of course!!!).

I bought a Samsung 840 pro 256GB drive for my new PC - the drive itself is fast, but Samsung's software is horrible and their support non existent, which reminds me that I must get back in touch with them and blast them for such crappy support. OCZ has excellent support and I should have sacrificed a few percent in speed for the better support. Oh well, you live and learn.

If you want speed on your data, you could consider a SCSI card and drives, but they're expensive, not easy to find, and storage rates haven't really increased for them like with ordinary drives. Perhaps a WD raptor (10k spin rate drive) might be OK too as a compromise?

I typically go raid 1 as data integrity is more important to me than outright speed.

I have to say I'm not enamoured of most of the new technologies - having just went through nightmare with my new PC (issues still not resolved), especially with AHCI and EFI.

Dave

LightningNZ
09-06-2013, 02:18 PM
Even the fastest Raptors can't hold a candle to even the slowest of today's SSDs. Seriously, just get one, download your image stack, combine your image data and then back it up. It's also pretty unlikely these days that you'll get an SSD that'll die within warranty.

You don't need the very latest SATA to get a massive performance boost either. You won't notice the difference between 300 MB/s and 600 MB/s, you will notice the difference between 80 MB/s and 300 MB/s...

One last benefit that I haven't noticed mentioned yet is that other running processes will not soak up your disks ability to deal with multiple requests. Even a cheap, totally loaded up SSD will offer 100x the number of IOs per second that even a Raptor can offer. I know that's not a big deal for desktop users, but I noticed that even just AV + Spybot would take up a significant number of IOs that my old 7200 rpm drives could offer.

deadsimple
13-06-2013, 12:33 AM
I would not listen to the doom and gloom posts and come to the conclusion that all SSDs are unreliable. Those users were unfortunate to buy from manufacturers such as OCZ, Corsair, etc. They have been known for a couple of years to have poor quality control and have pushed out series after series of unreliable drives, yet many people still bought them due to the lower price (at the time) and then complained about data loss. Others were unfortunate to not know about the unreliability before purchase, as store sales staff will push anything to get rid of stock.

As others have said, Samsung's series are excellent, as are most of the Intels and the ones from Crucial. I don't even need to list the models as those companies have consistently pushed out reliable solid-state drives and have good quality control overall.

I personally have several Crucial C300s & C400s, and my current system has a Samsung 830. However, despite the very low failure rates from these manufacturers, I still run regular backups as any electronics hardware can fail unexpectedly.

If you're after some backup software, I'd wholeheartedly recommend Macrium Reflect:

http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.aspx

The free version is very capable, and unlike junk like Acronis or most of the other backup software you see on the market with all the bells and whistles, it's actually very reliable and won't unexpectedly fail on you when you're trying to restore your data despite giving you a thumbs up during the backup itself.

Garbz
13-06-2013, 09:31 PM
Interesting conclusion you drew about reliability. Corsair are well known for their excellent quality control in the memory world, and OCZ are far from cheap and nasty. Samsung on the other hand are pushing out drives using the cheapest possible high density MLC modules which have known lower failure rates.

I would conclude is that users were burnt by the issues early Sandforce controllers had which were used by multiple vendors. All these issues were resolved via firmware updates, but then how many people do you know who have actually checked to see if their SSD has the latest firmware?

The failure rates across all manufacturers for SSD is lower than HDD with no one being able to conclusively like to any problem so far other than a particular series of Sandforce controllers which isn't used in any current drive. Yet the fear factor is still there for some reason...

deadsimple
14-06-2013, 12:34 AM
If you had said that say 3-4 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately since then, the statistics consistently disagree.

Memory return rates:

2010: http://www.behardware.com/articles/788-4/components-returns-rates.html
2011a: http://www.behardware.com/articles/831-4/components-returns-rates.html
2011b: http://www.behardware.com/articles/843-4/components-returns-rates-5.html
2012a: http://www.behardware.com/articles/862-4/components-returns-rates-6.html
2012b: http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-4/components-returns-rates-7.html
2013: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-4/memoires.html

Corsair and OCZ topping the list for highest rate of returns since 2010.

SSD return rates:

2011a: http://www.behardware.com/articles/831-7/components-returns-rates.html
2011b: http://www.behardware.com/articles/843-7/components-returns-rates-5.html
2012a: http://www.behardware.com/articles/862-7/components-returns-rates-6.html
2012b: http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html
2013: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html

Again OCZ and Corsair topping almost all the lists for returns rates, even to this day when the obvious Sandforce problems are long past. Also, user reviews on Amazon.com and Newegg.com have a strong correlation with the above statistics.

Here's the thing. It still comes down to quality control and the manufacturer's technical ability. While OCZ and Corsair were blaming Sandforce for months and waiting for fixes to trickle down to them while still producing and shipping new drives based on the faulty Sandforce tech, Intel jumped in when Sandforce stability was still bad and silently fixed the major bugs on their own without raising a sweat before the first unit was shipped, since it was a standard part of their quality control processes.

It's a shame that OCZ/Corsair did not scale back and put more resources towards solving the critical bugs, and yes this has scared people in the long-term. Then again, many people haven't done a backup in years and are always surprised when their drives die, as though there was no way around losing the data.

Tandum
14-06-2013, 12:47 AM
I thought ocz was in recievership?