Limiting Factor For Multiple Disk RAID 0 Setup

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by steiney, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #1
    Hello all!

    I've been thinking for a while about getting a Classic Macbook Pro, so I can do a RAID 0 using the optical bay and get crazy fast data speeds.

    Recently, it occurred to me that the Mac Pro has room for four disk. If I put four SSDs in in a Mac Pro and put them in RAID 0, would I get twice the data speeds of two SSDs in RAID 0? If not, what is the limiting factor? The CPU? Motherboard? This is where my computer knowledge gets a little fuzzy.

    I've tried searching for the answer a bit but haven't found anything that really addresses my question. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks in advance,

    steiney
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #2
    No point in RAIDING SSDs, especially on a Mac Pro with SATAII. Even with SATAIII (2011 cMBP and up) will not really benefit from RAID0.

    Just get the largest SSD you can and use it as a single device.

    RAID 0'ing hard drives, sure. Also note with RAID0 you increase the chance of data failure by two times.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    rezwits

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #4
    So it sounds like the SATAIII 6 Gb/sec is the limiting factor. I just divided that by 8 and got 0.75GB/sec. So that's the limit for one SATAIII controller, but assuming we are working with a Macbook Pro with two separate SATAIII's, and you hooked up two disks to each, four total, then your theoretical max would be 1.5GB/sec? I know this can't practically be done with a Macbook Pro, but once the new Mac Pros are out and presumably have SATAIII controllers for the SSD bays and optical bays, then you'd have at least two separate SATAIII controllers, and enough space to internally mount 6 SSDs. That would be interesting.

    I checked out BareFeats.com, but it's not very easy on the eyes. I'll have to go back to it when I have more time and read through. Thanks.
     
  5. macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #5
    Apple stopped making the classic MBP in 2008 and it never have SATA3. The model you are referring to is the unibody MBP.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #6
    From what I've seen, everyone calls the two current Macbook Pro models cMBP and rMBP, "c" standing for "classic" and "r" standing for "retina". It seems like everyone calls the old style the "pre-unibody" Macbook Pro.
     
  7. macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #7
    Before the Retina MBP came out the original MBP was called the classic MacBook Pro. Just because the Retina is released does not change that. Those that are calling the Unibody MBP the classic MBP are wrong.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #8
    Back in my day, we used to whittle down hickory branches and poke squirrels with them. Squirrel pokers, they used to call 'em! You'd go up to the general store and get a pack of gum drops, then head out to the woods a-lookin' fer squirrels and when you found one, you'd just get to jabbin' until the darn thing said, "Well, that's enough of that silly business now, you hear?!?" Then you'd kindly apologize and be on your way. Those were the days.
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #9
    Relax.

    cMBP is what we now refer to as the unibody because rMBP is on it's path to replace all previous models, which are part of the legacy, and thus called the classic.

    There's no reason to call the unibody as uMBP. No one calls it that.

    :rolleyes:
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
  11. macrumors regular

    rezwits

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #11
    Oh hey I am kinda trying to figure out...

    Which way you are going here?

    Are you wanting to upgrade the MacBook Pro or the Mac Pro?

    Cause the MacBooks (Sandy Bridge 2011) you don't want to take out the optical, I will tell you that right now.

    if you have a 13 you should be fine, but the ordeal for the 15 and 17 sucks right now

    The reason is because of this:
    http://blog.macsales.com/11895-2011-macbook-pro-sata-problems-resolved

    Hope that helps, but as far as Mac Pro's ALL DAY if you can afford it.

    6 Gb/s has the potential for 750 MB/s
    notice the b an B, bits and Bytes

    1 SSD doesn't really get that high by itself, nor 2 or even 3 really.

    The other thing is I have been researching reliability in SSDs, myself and

    It's really great actually (especially compared to HD). The report I read over a month ago essentially says, unless the drive doesn't fail in the first 6 months, the "odds" are most likely it won't, in which case if it did, YES, you would loose your data, but you could get a replacement drive (warranty), and then "odds" are you should be done worrying... with a GOOD SET of 4 drives.

    But there are different types of SSD to look into, like for instance, an Intel server SSD maybe be slower than an OWC SSD, but it's drive failure rates over all in mass are lower but we are talking low %s here... so go figure on that aspect too.

    :)

    Have fun...

    I know one thing tho. As my regular HD drives fail, and my RAID sets die, I will be putting them in external cases, for raw cold "turned off" hard storage for off site. Then replacing them with the same size SSDs, hopefully, if HDs last till SSD, get that size. I want 1 TB SSDs, hopefully 2015-16.

    Just would be nice if they made 3.5 inch SSDs :( Cause that is the only thing that has me bummed. Buying 2.5 to 3.5 inch Mac Pro bay converters, sucks.

    ugh
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #12
    I am definitely planning on getting a Macbook Pro. I have extreme need for portability. My post was just a theoretical wonder. Thanks for the rest of the info!
     

Share This Page