RAID 0 ssd in MacBook Pro 2011

[Ak907Freerider]

Ok so I just installed a samsung 840 250gb ssd in my main bay in my early 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro. I ordered a owc opitical drive replacement bay for my stock 750gb hdd. But now I'm thinking about a second samsung ssd instead. I would run this as a raid 0. I'm thinking instead of a 1tb fusion with a slow 5400rpm hdd and ssd. It would be beast mode with 2 ssd in raid 0. Has anyone tried this set up with any luck. Would trim be a issue or can trim enabler handle a raid 0? Any thoughts suggestions? I run all my stuff externally then move files I need to main hdd as I'm working. Hd video editing on final cut. Then when done store externally so 500gb would be more than enough.

Also figure would be same as fusion if one hdd goes out there both dead. So if I'm correct this would be more reliable no moving parts with ssd.

 

[Jasonx82]

Ok so I just installed a samsung 840 250gb ssd in my main bay in my early 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro. I ordered a owc opitical drive replacement bay for my stock 750gb hdd. But now I'm thinking about a second samsung ssd instead. I would run this as a raid 0. I'm thinking instead of a 1tb fusion with a slow 5400rpm hdd and ssd. It would be beast mode with 2 ssd in raid 0. Has anyone tried this set up with any luck. Would trim be a issue or can trim enabler handle a raid 0? Any thoughts suggestions? I run all my stuff externally then move files I need to main hdd as I'm working. Hd video editing on final cut. Then when done store externally so 500gb would be more than enough.

Does the MBP even have RAID support? (hardware/software)

 

[Ak907Freerider]

Yes it does I did it several times with my Lacie little big disk. Just curious cause I've heard mixed reports that the early 2011 MacBook Pro uses sata II for the optical drive. Which would slow things down.

 

[jav6454]

I do also believe that mid-2011 Macs still only had SATA II for the optical bay. I'm 80% sure on that note.

 

[simonsi]

Purpose of RAID0 is to reduce the duration to read or write a given file from/to disk at a cost of doubling the volume failure rate. (i.e. you write half the data to each disk in the 2 disk array, but the combined disk array will fail twice as often as a single disk, all other things being equal). I'm not even sure the MBP internal bus and controllers can support saturating 2x SATA3 disks concurrently.

Not sure that would bring an appreciable user experience speed increase unless you are bit-rate peeking on large file read/writes....???

 

[jav6454]

Purpose of RAID0 is to reduce the duration to read or write a given file from/to disk at a cost of doubling the volume failure rate. (i.e. you write half the data to each disk in the 2 disk array, but the combined disk array will fail twice as often as a single disk, all other things being equal). I'm not even sure the MBP internal bus and controllers can support saturating 2x SATA3 disks concurrently.

Not sure that would bring an appreciable user experience speed increase unless you are bit-rate peeking on large file read/writes....???

The chipset can support the saturation. That is not the issue. However, I'm more concerned on the approach of RAID 0 using SSDs on a MacBook. Not that anything wrong can happen. But, the purpose of an SSD is to make things fast. How much faster do you really need them to be? At this point the question becomes, why not get a dedicated computer with high disk transfer rates instead of a laptop?

 

[simonsi]

I do also believe that mid-2011 Macs still only had SATA II for the optical bay. I'm 80% sure on that note.

My early-2011 has SATA3 on the optical port, even more rarely it actually runs at full SATA3 speed....

 

[jav6454]

My early-2011 has SATA3 on the optical port, even more rarely it actually runs at full SATA3 speed....

Some do, some don't. It varies greatly and it is always best to assume it doesn't until you prove it actually does.

You don't get hopes up just in case (also it becomes a bonus if actually does).

 

[grahamperrin]

… I'm thinking instead of a 1tb fusion with a slow 5400rpm hdd and ssd. …

Within the current constraints of file systems and storage systems – typically Core Storage and HFS Plus – I would take that hybrid approach. Fusion Drive-like.

I would prefer 7,200 RPM for the rotational medium. But if the existing drive rotates more slowly, I would not rush to replace it with one at 7,200.

In any case, with that notebook, I would not make any final or medium-term decision until some time in 2015. Apple might introduce changes on (at least) the file system front.

 

[simonsi]

Some do, some don't. It varies greatly and it is always best to assume it doesn't until you prove it actually does.

You don't get hopes up just in case (also it becomes a bonus if actually does).

I know its rare hence my comment. Interestingly, although I have the SSD in the Optical bay, DriveDX reports that the Optical port is SATA3.1 6Gb/s and running at 6Gb/s but it reports the HDD in the main drive bay as SATA 2.6 6Gb/s and running at 6Gb/s.

So SATA 2.6 in the main drive bay.....but still actually running at 6Gb/s.

Neither drive is logging any errors according to Drive DX either. Performance is great. The Crucial SSD is at MU02 firmware so not the latest but I have no intention of rocking a working boat.

 

[Brian Y]

Purpose of RAID0 is to reduce the duration to read or write a given file from/to disk at a cost of doubling the volume failure rate. (i.e. you write half the data to each disk in the 2 disk array, but the combined disk array will fail twice as often as a single disk, all other things being equal). I'm not even sure the MBP internal bus and controllers can support saturating 2x SATA3 disks concurrently.

Not sure that would bring an appreciable user experience speed increase unless you are bit-rate peeking on large file read/writes....???

I have two SSDs (840 pros) in Raid 0 in my 2011 iMac and its great - however there are a few things people should note before hand.

- In the real world, for normal usage, you will not notice any difference. Safari won't open quicker, and even heavy apps (Photoshop, Xcode, etc) will have a negligible speed increase compared to a single SSD.

- Boot time will be slightly slower, since the raid array needs to initialise. Once the raid array is initialised, the spinner doesn't go 1/4 of the way round though .

- Backup, backup, backup. You're doubling your risk of data loss, so make sure you have everything backed up.

Where this config comes into its own is when you do anything which requires multiple simultaneous reads/writes to the drive. My config provides nearly 1GB/s read/write, and I can have 6 or 7 Virtual Machines running, each doing something relatively disk intensive, and there is still more than enough disk bandwidth free for the OS and other stuff (in other words, I can have 6 VMs chugging away at the disk, and Photoshop still opens in less than a second).

So, to sum up, if you do anything really disk intensive on a continuous basis, go for the SSD raid config. If you aren't a disk heavy user, or only do it every so often, you'll benefit far more from having an SSD plus a large HDD for data storage. Also, if using SSDs for anything disk intensive, prepare for failures. I've estimated that, given my usage patterns, my 840 pros won't last more than 5 years - however SSDs are so cheap these days, as long as you keep a regular backup, it's not a big deal.

 

[maflynn]

The chipset can support the saturation. That is not the issue. However, I'm more concerned on the approach of RAID 0 using SSDs on a MacBook. Not that anything wrong can happen. But, the purpose of an SSD is to make things fast. How much faster do you really need them to be? At this point the question becomes, why not get a dedicated computer with high disk transfer rates instead of a laptop?

I agree, many people who go the RAID-0 route really don't need it and are incurring a higher degree of risk. SSDs are plenty fast RAID 0 will increase the performance but is it needed?

If the OP is intent on doing it, I highly suggest a solid backup strategy, if he loses one volume he loses his entire array.

 

[Ak907Freerider]

I run 2 time machine back ups. One off my iMac and one with the time capsule. I'm just figuring reliability wise a raid 0 ssd set up would be more reliable than a fusion with a ssd and regular hdd. Since hdd are more prone to fail than a ssd.

 

[simonsi]

I'm just figuring reliability wise a raid 0 ssd set up would be more reliable than a fusion with a ssd and regular hdd. Since hdd are more prone to fail than a ssd.

Definitely but then running the same drives in a non-RAID0 configuration would be more reliable than in a RAID0 as with RAID0 the entire combined volume of data is affected if either disk fails. Keeping the drives separate (non-fusion, non-RAID0), means any drive failure only affects the data on that drive, not all the data on the array.

RAID0 always adds speed at the cost of reliability over the same drives outside a RAID0 array.

 

[grahamperrin]

Hard disk (HDD), hybrid (SSHD) and solid state drive (SSD) reliability

… reliability wise … hdd are more prone to fail than a ssd.

Personally, I would not make so broad a generalisation.

It might be said that sudden extreme failure – e.g. the drive hardware suddenly becoming unrecognisable (as storage) to the OS, or suddenly impossible to mount the HFS Plus file system with write access – is more likely with SSDs than with some types of HDD. Thoughts, anyone?

(Anecdotally, for me, signs of possible gradual failure of an SSHD have begun sooner than sudden extreme failure of the Apple-provided HDD that preceded the hybrid.)

Ak907Freerider, you have a reasonably good backup strategy. If writes to at least one of those two destinations are suitably frequent, then I would suggest not over-focusing on reliability of the notebook alone …

… do whatever you think will be best with the notebook's storage capabilities, with an assumption that neither internal storage device will fail in a way that is inconvenient.

(Essentially: if you like the idea of a Fusion Drive, go for something like that; and when it fails, restore from one of your backups.)

 

[simonsi]

It might be said ...is more likely with SSDs than with some types of HDD. Thoughts, anyone?

It might be said but based on what evidence?

 

[grahamperrin]

It might be said but based on what evidence?

A good question, and honestly I can't recall exactly where I read the things that contributed to my thought about sudden failures. Some things that were previously online are no longer online, and I can't easily find what I want amongst annotated bookmarks.

Off-topic from the opening post and OT from sudden failures, I'm equally (if not more) interested in subtle failures, particularly where the limitations of OS X make it difficult for end users to realise the effects of and/or true reasons for a failure. https://web.archive.org/web/2014012....com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/ there was a comment from me, and a reply from Backblaze, but I don't know whether anything will come of it. And if ever there's a follow-up, it will probably be OT from SSDs

 

[simonsi]

Well until then probably best to work on the experience of the industry that tells you that mechanical items have a greater failure rate than purely electronic items as far as you can make things equal.

 

[grahamperrin]

… experience of the industry that tells you that mechanical items have a greater failure rate than purely electronic items as far as you can make things equal.

I could have been more specific in an earlier post … I was thinking more of time before sudden failure (less of rates; not of MTBF) where data is deemed to be irrecoverable.

I'd like to post some more links relating to flash and solid state, from a private forum a few months ago, but Apple Hardware is not the ideal heading for such things …

 

[AxoNeuron]

With the 2011 13" MacBook Pro, the optical SATA cable was SATA III so it won't be an issue. You can confirm in system profiler. It was only the 15" and 17" that year that had the weird SATA II bus solely for the optical drive.

Purpose of RAID0 is to reduce the duration to read or write a given file from/to disk at a cost of doubling the volume failure rate. (i.e. you write half the data to each disk in the 2 disk array, but the combined disk array will fail twice as often as a single disk, all other things being equal). I'm not even sure the MBP internal bus and controllers can support saturating 2x SATA3 disks concurrently.

Not sure that would bring an appreciable user experience speed increase unless you are bit-rate peeking on large file read/writes....???

With modern SSD's, especially from big-name brands like Samsung, the failure rate is incredulously low. So I wouldn't worry about it. I'd make sure to run a time machine backup every now and then though.

 

[simonsi]

With the 2011 13" MacBook Pro, the optical SATA cable was SATA III so it won't be an issue. You can confirm in system profiler. It was only the 15" and 17" that year that had the weird SATA II bus solely for the optical drive.

Good to know, lots of posts on the subject include the 13" in the "2011" pool with issues - it has probably put a lot of people off but mine run with zero issues, just great performance on both drives...thanks for the info!

 

[Ak907Freerider]

So since my macbook is a 15 inch model it for sure is sata II?

 

[simonsi]

Follow

About This Mac
More Info
System Report
SATA/SATA Express

In the data panel Click on the bottom "Intel 6 series chipset" for the Optical bay SATA port.

See what is says for "Link Speed" and "Negotiated Link Speed"

Link Speed means 3 Gigabit = SATA 2, 6 Gigabit = SATA 3

Negotiated Link Speed should be the same as Link Speed if running correctly but a slow device can negotiate lower. My original Optical drive for instance had negotiated a 1.5 Gigabit rate on a SATA 3 6 Gigabit link

 

[jav6454]

I run 2 time machine back ups. One off my iMac and one with the time capsule. I'm just figuring reliability wise a raid 0 ssd set up would be more reliable than a fusion with a ssd and regular hdd. Since hdd are more prone to fail than a ssd.

SSDs using 6Gb/s connections are not the most stable thing right now. Not saying your array will become corrupted or be nuked due to SSD failure. But it is a real threat you have to consider.

An SSD alone right now using the full blown 6Gb/s bandwidth can do wonders. I'll just reiterate my earlier question as to why you need RAID 0 on a laptop?

 

[AxoNeuron]

SSDs using 6Gb/s connections are not the most stable thing right now. Not saying your array will become corrupted or be nuked due to SSD failure. But it is a real threat you have to consider.

An SSD alone right now using the full blown 6Gb/s bandwidth can do wonders. I'll just reiterate my earlier question as to why you need RAID 0 on a laptop?

I have built plenty of systems using two (and more) SSD's in a RAID0 config and I have never had a single issue. In fact, RAID0 with SSD's is enormously more stable than with HDD's. As long as you're buying your SSD from a reputable manufacturer like Samsung and not out of the back of some guy's van, you should be just fine.

Running two SSD's in RAID0 is still safer than keeping all of your data on a single hard drive.

The only time you will start running in to reliability issues is if you commonly experience power loss events during large write operations, and even then you won't have an issue with most of the latest high-end SSD's. In a MacBook Pro, this scenario will basically never happen.