Mbp raid0 array?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by JT123, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. JT123, Oct 12, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011

    JT123 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    #1
    Hi Guys,

    Just thinking maybe of getting a 15" MBP with 2.2GHz Processor, leaving the HDD and then purchasing two Vertex 3's (120gb) and running them in a RAID0 array.

    Does a RAID array provide any performance increase, or for what it's worth, should I get a 240Gb Vertex and leave the SuperDrive alone?

    What's your opinions of OCZ Vertex 3 vs. Corsair Force 3

    Also does it matter that there is a SSD in the SuperDrive, does this create like a bottleneck in the RAID array... forgive me for my lack of knowledge about RAID arrays &c.


    Thanks
     
  2. ThemacNub macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #2
    Vertex 3's in raid0 is not a good idea as they are not a reliable ssd matched with the doubled risk of raid0. You will not notice a difference between a single ssd and a raid. Dont do raid unless you need very fast read writes, which i doubt. Stick with one reliable ssd (crucial m4 or samsung 470) and youll be more than satisfied. And yes the optibay will bottleneck sata 3 ssds
     
  3. JT123 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    #3
    This is a contradiction of what you just said. I'm not sure what you mean.

    Thanks for the advice on the reliability i'll look into it, but I have a NAS that backs up my Macs every hour on by TimeMachine, so given OCZ's supposedly excellent replacement warranties will this be an issue?

    Also if one goes down, does that take the other down and all of the data on both- i'm really not familiar with RAID arrays.
     
  4. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #4
    You could've searched google for this, but yeah, if one drive fails, it takes the other one out with it.

    Not a good idea.
     
  5. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    #5
    I realize that all the data would be lost, but if one drive fails due to its hardware, the other drive would be useless as well?
     
  6. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #6
    AFAIK, the other drive would need to be reformatted but could be salvaged, but by then, what's the point? Your precious data has been lost and is not recoverable, all for an imperceptible gain of running already fast SSDs in RAID.
     
  7. JT123 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    #7
    Because TimeMachine backs up over the Network to a NAS drive, if anything went wrong I could just restore a Backup straight back on. If it wasn't RAID0 I would've lost half of my data, I would have the other half- but if it took the drive with the OS it would be unusable anyway.

    Probability of HDD vs SSD failure causing OS Drive Destruction- Purely Hypothetical:

    I was talking to a guy at a Data Centre- 1 in 10 of their WD Caviar Drives malfunction every year, realistically that is data centre environment therefore normal use maybe 4% or 4/100.

    4/100 fail rate X 1/2 chance of it taking OS HDD

    = 2% Chance of OS Drive Being Destroyed in case of either drive malfunctioning (given 50/50 chance)

    SSD Fail rate as of 2010 is 2%

    2/100 fail rate X 100 chance of OS going down

    = 2% Chance of OS Drive Being Destroyed in case of either drive malfunctioning (given 50/50 chance)


    Im not saying these calculations are anything near scientific, but to me this sort of shows that either way you may run into problems - but considering the Backups and the speed gains, which, doing research, has proved a well setup RAID0 array, are great.


    Let me know what you think of this analogy.
     
  8. ThemacNub macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #8
    Its not a contradiction. I was stating only go raid if you absolutely need a read write speed that high. ie for scratch disks in adobe.
     
  9. DWBurke811 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Location:
    Boca Raton, FL
    #9
    that's not true in all instances, as a lot(or all?) of the 2011's have SATA3 in both bays.

    that said, i sorta feel like this is one of the types of questions that if you're asking about it, you wouldn't benefit from the slight, slight performance boost over a single 240GB SSD(which will leave your superdrive in place fwiw)
     
  10. ThemacNub macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    I though they still had sata 2, good to know they got an upgrade. I completely agree with you.
     

Share This Page