Single Intel X25 vs 2 X25 in Raid0 15" MacBook Pro

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by idonotliketostu, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. idonotliketostu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #1
    I have a pair of 2ndGen 160GB X25 SSD.

    one drive scores 240
    two drive in raid0 with 128bit blocks scores 357



    Interesting finds:

    Base on benchmark test
    raid0 boost overall performance from single by 48%, or you can say a single drive is 67% as fast as raid0

    bootup
    # of complete spinning graphics after apple logo pops up
    raid0: 3-5
    singe: 5/12 to 8/12

    You can only see a difference when copying files larger than 700MB, otherwise the performance is unnoticed.

    All application open up in less than a bounce in either drives.

    Dashboard with TONS of widgets will load in less than 1 seconds in either drives.

    Conclusion
    A single SSD boots up faster than 2 SSD in Raid0
    Raid0 has no real world performance gain in write other than copying files over 700MB.

    There is no real world performance gains in read because one drive is already already so fast, a 50% boost is negligible. I think it feels like graph of square root function (maybe not so extreme but close) where you increase the speed-x by 50% but output-y goes nowhere

    So unless you are always working with files (i mean editing) in the gig range, there are no advantages of raid0.
     
  2. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    The 'problem' is your system.
    A MacBook Pro is simply not fast enough for a striped array out of two high performance SSDs.

    A RAID0 out of two or more drives results in a massive speed gain in a decent system like the Mac Pro since it has enough CPU and memory capacity to keep up with such a fast storage drive.
     
  3. idonotliketostu thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #3
    There's a 50% gain base on the benching, that is pretty massive don't you say. You just don't "see" the gain in action doing basic stuff. But you can def see a HUGE difference up from a 500gb 7200rpm drive.
     
  4. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    50% is not what you can expect from a RAID0.
    That should be near to 90%.

    People almost gained a performance increase of 100% by striping two Intel SSDs in a Mac Pro.

    I had the Intel in both my Mac Pro and my MacBook Pro and the drive felt definitely faster in the desktop PC. App loading was considerably faster than on the notebook.
     
  5. idonotliketostu thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #5
    90-100% performance increase is impossible in ANY system. Benchmarks or gtfo lol. All my apps load almost instantaneous (i've tried it in my 2.0ghz macbook with similar results) so if you can see considerable differences in load time, please tell me how to warp or slow down time or me thinks you need to bring your mbp to the :apple:genius bar :p
     
  6. rickvanr macrumors 68040

    rickvanr

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Brockville
    #6
    Just curious, how do you fit 2 SSDs in a MBP? Are you removing the optical drive?
     
  7. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Well that depends on the drive setup.
    In general you can say that with a RAID0 and n-drives, you get n-times the performance of a single drive.

    (2 drives, 2 times the performance, 3 drives, 3 times the performance...)

    I've got several RAID0 setups running, three of them in my Mac Pro. I just give you the numbers of one array, cause the others behave the exact same way.

    2 drive array out 1TB WD Blacks.
    Single drive performance read/write: 100MB/s (sequential)
    RAID0 drive performance read/write: 200MB/s (sequential)

    That's pretty much a 100% increase, don't you think? :rolleyes:
     
  8. idonotliketostu thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    #8
    I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or real.

    Like I said before benchmarks or gtfo! 100% increase not possible due to overhead unless you are on hardware raid which still wouldn't be at 100% but with very low overhead.






    Yes, I replaced the optical drive with another HD.
     
  9. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    I'm absolutely serious.
    I'm not sure what you mean with "gtfo" though.
    All I can do is provide real world results (since I don't care about benchmarks) of the RAID0 arrays (software OS X) I use in my Mac Pro. You can acknowledge them or not, after googling what "gtfo" may mean, I honestly don't care if you do or not.
    I know that i almost gained twice the performance by creating a striped set out of two drives over a single drive.
    If you think that 50% gain is normal, do so.
    I rest my case.
     
  10. dolphin842 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    #10
    Yes, there are third-party (i.e. at your own risk) solutions to convert the optical drive bay area into room for a second drive. Here's one such solution).

    Depending on one's data needs, you can combine an SSD for booting and a 'regular' hard drive for user data. You can tell OS X to look for your /user folder on a separate drive, so it can have the best of both worlds (i.e. system files and apps on the ssd for fast booting, and lots of space for user files on a normal drive).
     

Share This Page