SSD Boot Drive: Have you yet? When will you?

[iBookG4user]

I'm currently using three 60GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSDs in RAID 0 for boot in my Mac Pro. It's very quick, I'm pleased with the performance of it, I have 3TB worth of storage in addition to the SSDs so it's win-win

Currently getting writes of 580MB/sec and reads of 650MB/sec

 

[bluesteel]

I've been meaning to ask - what exactly is it about OWC's SSDs that make them "Mac friendly"?

I mean, I know the company is a Mac/Apple reseller so obviously they know what fits well with Macs.

What I mean is, aren't their SSDs just some other manufacturer's SSD, rebadged? Like how we know that LaCie's "Big Disk" drives aren't made by them, they just take Seagate/WD/whatever and package them up in their own custom packaging?

OWC is an Apple Certified Developer that tests their SSDs primarily with Macs in their lab, and i don't know of any other SSD brand that does this.

 

[gpzjock]

Owc ftw

I have used a 128 GB OWC SSD Extreme as a boot drive in my MP 2008 octo for the last 6 months, it holds a minimum User folder and all my regular apps including my WoW folder. 72 GB used. My 3 mechanical drives act as storage, 1.4 TB of HDD space is plenty. Using the HDDs means they are slow when cold but once a drive is spinning the SSD run apps pull files amazingly quickly.

OWC's drives are "Mac friendly" because they are Sandforce driven and keep a portion of their storage for maintenance so Trim functions not present in OS X are not needed. I have 120 GB of usable space and 8 GB is for the system to optimise it. After fully installing everything on the SSD it stated I had used 82 GB, after the next restart it said 77 GB used, after 6 months this is now 72 GB, my data is shrinking! Strange but nice. Boots in 15 seconds from the chime, lovin' it. If I want to see how bad it could be I simply switch to my HDD based Win7 build and watch the M$ bootscreen for 3 mins.....

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

But the fact that OWC's SSDs have SandForce controllers ... they're still someone else's drive under the hood, right?

Transporteur said "OWC make their own firmware for the Sandforce controller." Is there any independent confirmation of that?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to diss OWC here. I think it's great that a -centered vendor exists with such a good reputation. But I'm thinking of buying a large (> 240 GB) SSD and cost is, unfortunately, a factor. If I can get the same exact SandForce drive they use under the pretty blue covering for less money, I have to give it some thought.

 

[bluesteel]

But the fact that OWC's SSDs have SandForce controllers ... they're still someone else's drive under the hood, right?

no, there isn't someone else's drive under the hood of an OWC SSD. OWC manufactures their own SSD in the USA. in fact, i read that they are the only high-volume manufacturer of SSDs in the USA. they work directly with SandForce in Texas, and they use Tier-1 flash memory.

OWC is the real deal. they make a very high quality SSD. you should call OWC yourself and talk to them...they're really nice people over there. here, read this:

http://blog.macsales.com/9438-not-all-ssd’s-are-created-equal-the-story-continues

 

[gglockner]

Currently I'm using RAID-0 with traditional mechanical drives, and my tests with AJA Kona show that I'm roughly 70% of read/write speeds of SSD. OTOH, I have a MBA for travel, and its SSD - which I fully realize isn't on the bleeding edge of SSD potential - is impressive.

However, I'm still stuck wondering if I want to bother with having to spread my system across a combination of drives because, obviously, SSDs aren't cost effective for large data storage (virtual machines, photos/audio/video, etc.). Just the thought of having to backup a mixed system is making me nervous. NFS mounting would be ideal, but Mac (AFAIK) isn't as seamless as *nix in this regard.

Sorry for the long rambling post - I think it's just me trying to figure out: is SSD really so much better than RAID-0 with mechanical drives that it's worth the hassle of a multi-drive setup?

 

[Transporteur]

Sorry for the long rambling post - I think it's just me trying to figure out: is SSD really so much better than RAID-0 with mechanical drives that it's worth the hassle of a multi-drive setup?

What you tend to forget is the random performance. Your 70% are sequential speeds, a factor that doesn't have anything to do with OS / app performance.
It is the random read/write speeds that affect the OS and your RAID 0 doesn't even come close to that performance.

It really is so much better. Once you experienced the speed, you won't go back to a mechanical drive setup for boot / apps, no matter if you RAID them or not.

I don't really get the "hassle" with a multi-drive backup. Just setup multiple syncs. For instance, I run CCC and TimeMachine for my boot SSD, and and CCC and rsync for my data drives (mechanical). It all runs automatically, so I don't even have to think about backups any more.

 

[bluesteel]

Sorry for the long rambling post - I think it's just me trying to figure out: is SSD really so much better than RAID-0 with mechanical drives that it's worth the hassle of a multi-drive setup?

i use an SSD for systems/apps in OSX, and my user folder is on a WD Black 2TBx2 RAID-0. the only two differences i notice between my SSDs and HDD RAID-0 is noise and temperature. The HDD RAID-0 is noisier and hotter than the SSD...the SSD is dead silent and runs about 20 degrees cooler. i get almost the exact same read/write speeds with the SSD and HDD RAID-0...250-280 MB/s.....i don't notice the difference at all, although Transporteur's comment about the random read/write speeds being important makes sense...

i really don't think backing up a mixed system is a problem. i've been backing up with this configuration for almost a year with no problems whatsoever.

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

ta for the link bluesteel, much appreciated!

 

[nerdo]

Got a Crucial 256 300C a few months back for my laptop to do a big keynote. Switched it to my new 8core Mac Pro and been smiling ever since.. well during booting and opening app's anyway

Put the SSD in my second DVD bay and 4X3TB WD's in the other bays. If you like speed, this is the upgrade to have. Was booting from a 2TB Caviar black before but.. you can't compare these two. No way I'm going back to normal drives for boot, might even add a second one for caching.

This Crucial SSD was about 500 euro bucks, that's about $40.000 dollars with the current exchange rate right?

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

Put the SSD in my second DVD bay and 4X3TB WD's in the other bays. If you like speed, this is the upgrade to have. Was booting from a 2TB Caviar black before but... you can't compare these two. No way I'm going back to normal drives for boot, might even add a second one for caching.

I have 4x2TB in the 4 bays of my 6-core Westmere Mac Pro, and want to put an SSD into the 2nd optical bay, much like your setup.

I just noticed the Intel 510 (SSDSC2MH120A2K5 and SSDSC2MH250A2K5) 6 GB/sec SATA III drives are out now (and pricey - ouch). Hoping OWC announces a similar product soon, I want to start using this beast I bought!

 

[VirtualRain]

Sorry for the long rambling post - I think it's just me trying to figure out: is SSD really so much better than RAID-0 with mechanical drives that it's worth the hassle of a multi-drive setup?

Yes. Note where the Velociraptor scores in the following chart. And keep in mind that the bulk of desktop storage I/O is 4K Random Reads and Writes.

More...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829/20

 

[FluJunkie]

ta for the link bluesteel, much appreciated!

Other thoughts on them being "Mac friendly":

- They've stated with their new firmware updates, if you don't have the means to do the update (meaning a Windows or *nix machine), you can send it in and they'll do it for you.

- They've got videos of putting their stuff in Mac machines in the how-to section, etc.

They're also just a nice company to work with, and their drives, IIRC aren't vastly more expensive. If you believe that whole "the free hand of the market" thing, and want a small business responsive to customer needs who develops with your platform in mind...consider buying from them.

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

Are VirtualRain's graphs still valid? i.e. do the Intel SSDs really whup all comers as badly as those graphs imply???

 

[bamf]

Are VirtualRain's graphs still valid? i.e. do the Intel SSDs really whup all comers as badly as those graphs imply???

Those graphs are a bit dated - they do not show any Sandforce bases SSDs. That being said, I'm very happy with my X25-M G2 from Intel.

I'm going to be buying another SSD soon, and I may go with the Intel 320 Series (X25-M G3) due to reliability instead of just looking for pure speed.

 

[VirtualRain]

Those graphs are a bit dated - they do not show any Sandforce bases SSDs.

That's correct. They are a bit dated but are effective at showing how SSDs are orders of magnitude better at random reads/writes than mechanical drives. Current gen SSDs merely widen this already formidable gap.

 

[layte]

no, there isn't someone else's drive under the hood of an OWC SSD. OWC manufactures their own SSD in the USA. in fact, i read that they are the only high-volume manufacturer of SSDs in the USA. they work directly with SandForce in Texas, and they use Tier-1 flash memory.

OWC is the real deal. they make a very high quality SSD. you should call OWC yourself and talk to them...they're really nice people over there. here, read this:

http://blog.macsales.com/9438-not-all-ssd’s-are-created-equal-the-story-continues

So apart from OWC's very own blog on their sales website (an impartial source of information I'm sure) has this been independently verified? I ask as OCZ V2 drives have a very good reputation, with their superb performance well known and verified by many independent tech sites.

Storage Review did a test: http://www.storagereview.com/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_ssd_review_120gb

The conclusion is a bit strange as the OCZ seemed to win more tests than the OCW, but at least it shows an impartial result and finding, unlike that blog post.

I wonder how the Vertex3 would compare.

Edit: Some response on the OCZ forum
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...OWC-Takes-a-shot-at-OCZ-Chip-Quality-Concerns
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...nm-Spectek-Nand...see-here-for-specs-and-info

I guess OWC need to get some scaremongering in to put off potential customers, what with the Vertex 3 out next week.

Anyway, if you want reliability, buy Intel. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/3

 

[nerdo]

Right, this Crucial is Sata III and had class leading performance on SATA III. But I can't get more then SATA II speeds on my brand spanking new Mac Pro, so doubting the new MP's support SATA III.

If they don't I guess you can get the cheaper SSD's because by the time you upgrade to a SATA III system they will have cheaper SIII SSD HD's?!?!

Anyone got any other results?!?

I have 4x2TB in the 4 bays of my 6-core Westmere Mac Pro, and want to put an SSD into the 2nd optical bay, much like your setup.

I just noticed the Intel 510 (SSDSC2MH120A2K5 and SSDSC2MH250A2K5) 6 GB/sec SATA III drives are out now (and pricey - ouch). Hoping OWC announces a similar product soon, I want to start using this beast I bought!

 

[bluesteel]

ta for the link bluesteel, much appreciated!

no problem

 

[peskaa]

I'll pick up an SSD when I can get a 200+ GB one for a decent price. If I've got to install all my applications on to the SSD then I'd run out of space on a 80/120 drive a bit too fast.

My Windows box has a 60GB Corsair F60 as its boot drive (and a 500GB mechanical for storage) and it's nice and nippy. So I definitely appreciate the speed advantage, I just can't justify the cost. Oh, and that 60GB drive only has about 8GB free, so definitely too small!

 

[Pressure]

Are VirtualRain's graphs still valid? i.e. do the Intel SSDs really whup all comers as badly as those graphs imply???

You can check out the newest benchmarks here from the Intel 320 series Solid State Disk review.

Under normal usage models you will not notice the difference between the fastest drive to the Intel G2 drives.

The most important part is really reliability, and so far, Intel reigns supreme there.

 

[dknightd]

Yes. Note where the Velociraptor scores in the following chart. And keep in mind that the bulk of desktop storage I/O is 4K Random Reads and Writes.

Is that really true? Don't most apps work with bigger than 4K chunks these days?

More...

If I spent most of my day restarting, and loading apps, those graphs would suggest a real time savings. But I typically reboot when needed for system upgrades, and usually leave apps running that I'm likely to use again soon. I guess I'm not convinced a SSD would save me enough time to be worth the cost. I'm teetering. Not much doubt a SSD drive is in my future. Probably when the cost is less than $1/GB

 

[ListedFirst.com]

I wouldn't go back, actually I went forward. Got myself a ROcketRAID 4310 and did 4 Vertex 2 in RAID 0. THe card is maxed, and the throughput is insane!

 

[gglockner]

OK, so I went ahead and got an OWC SSD, installed it last night. Initial impressions: meh. Remember, beforehand I had RAID-0 for my boot drive. Now I have my boot drive on the SSD, with my home directory on the RAID-0. Yes, the boot time is faster, and the system is somewhat quieter. Xbench shows faster random access but somewhat slower sequential access. Is it better in real-world use? Somewhat faster, but not a big difference. Enough to justify the $230? No. But I'll not bother returning it.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I could have purchased a larger SSD and put (most of) my home directory on it, but that wasn't a possibility for me.

 

[philipma1957]

OK, so I went ahead and got an OWC SSD, installed it last night. Initial impressions: meh. Remember, beforehand I had RAID-0 for my boot drive. Now I have my boot drive on the SSD, with my home directory on the RAID-0. Yes, the boot time is faster, and the system is somewhat quieter. Xbench shows faster random access but somewhat slower sequential access. Is it better in real-world use? Somewhat faster, but not a big difference. Enough to justify the $230? No. But I'll not bother returning it.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I could have purchased a larger SSD and put (most of) my home directory on it, but that wasn't a possibility for me.

You have the most common problem of an average ssd user. Too small and cost too much. I purchased a new intel 320 series 300gb size. Cost 500 after discounts. It comes in a week. I am hoping I can fit what I want on it. After careful study of my usage I think a 300gb ssd will work I can make my ssd have about 170gb If I work at it.




I did a four hdd (caviar blacks) raid 0 as a boot drive with good backup it was 6tb big with 1 tb filled.

Cons were noisy and slow to boot. Once in a while audio stuttered.