2 WD Black RAID 0 vs 1 SSD?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by simplymuzik3, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. simplymuzik3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    #1
    Will the speed be comparable between a RAID setup that uses 2 x 1TB 64MB cache Blacks, vs 1 SSD (Intel X25-M for example)? Will the difference be noticeable at all (during application launches etc). I would like to know soon because I just ordered the 2 Blacks, and I just want to be sure I made the right decision!

    Thanks,
     
  2. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    The SSD will still be way faster for random access. Not to mention the fact that if you lose on disk in RAID 0, you lose everything.
     
  3. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    The SSD will be considerably faster by all means.
    What makes application loading fast is the random access of small files, not high substantial transfer rates.

    Anyhow, a single high end SSD would still be faster than a striped array of two 1TB Blacks in substantial reading transfers.
     
  4. simplymuzik3 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    #4
    Is there anywhere that compares the random read speeds between the 2? I've been googling around and haven't really found any. They're mostly for the velociraptors and higher end drives.

    EDIT: Maybe a better question would be: What are the random read times using WD Blacks in RAID? Would they reach 180 MB/s? And what block size would you recommend for a main OS? 32K? Sorry about all the questions!
     
  5. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
  6. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    No you minimize the loss of data to one disk; SSDs can fail and RAID 0 setups are just as likely to last years without any hiccups.
     
  7. simplymuzik3 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    #7
    But then you're limited with storage and it also costs more. I already have extra drives for time machine and I regularly do SuperDuper backups. RAID seems to be more cost effective and Im hoping it will yield similar speeds. I currently have a X25-M 80GB in my MBP, and the performance has also degraded quite a bit, I now get 180MB/s, which is why I was asking if the RAID could also achieve those speeds.

    I was also thinking about waiting and getting an Intel G3 when they come out. But then you also have to worry about cost, size, and no TRIM.

    decisions, decisions...
     
  8. Giuly macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #8
    Two WD VelociRaptors in RAID0 are at least comparabile to SSDs in terms of speed, but offer 5x the space for the same money.
    Even faster are 15000RPM SAS drives, but the controller (at least one which is bootable on a Mac) costs as much as a 240GB SSD. Apple has a RAID Card w/ SAS, too.
     
  9. simplymuzik3 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    #9
    I was looking around google, and people say the VelociRaptors aren't worth the extra money when compared to the Blacks. I know they WILL be faster, but it's just not worth the big price difference. Also, I found some people saying that you wouldn't notice the speed difference in real-world use.
     
  10. barefeats macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #10
    I use SpeedTools.com's QuickBench to do small random transfer testing on SSDs and HDDs.

    The SSD from OWC averaged 143MB/s random read and 125MB/s random write.
    The single WD RE4 Enterprise 2TB HDD averaged 26MB/s random read and 96MB/s random write.
    The single WD Caviar Black 2TB HDD averaged 27MB/s random read and 74MB/s random write.

    I haven't tested dual WDs in a RAID 0 yet but I will before today is over. However, the random read speed will be 50MB/s at best (or one-third that of the SSD).

    Another factor to consider is latency. The SSD has virtually zero latency with no moving parts. And it doesn't have to spin up when its put to sleep.

    However, there is something to be said for having 4TBs of HDD for the price of of 256G of SSD.
     
  11. simplymuzik3 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    #11
    Is it really that much slower with a RAID setup :eek: I thought they would at least be comparable! In real-world use, is it THAT noticeable between a single SSD and RAID? From what I've gathered, it doesn't seem to be THAT drastic!
     
  12. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #12
    A 80GB drive is going to slow down if it's your main drive. Remember, bigger SSDs won't slow down over time.

    Also, you have to ask yourself what this is really for. Is this for storage or for a fast boot? After you answer that, I think you can pretty much have an idea what you need.
     
  13. bluesteel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Earth
    #13
    look at this review and tests including the 600GB Velociraptor, WD Caviar Black 2TB, WD Black RE4 2TB, and Seagate Constellation ES 2TB:

    http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptor_review
     

Share This Page