Trevor Johnson wrote:You could have the OS and applications, including plugins on the 'boot disk, 250 Gb SSD, then samples and other data on another 250 Gb SSD. Writing down what you want to do may be a useful exercise: there are many variables to consider!
pattexer wrote:Really? :O
From the articles I have red they seem to disagree with you
"Right now there's nothing SATA III based that can outperform Samsung's SSD 840 EVO. Running a pair of 500GB EVO's in RAID is probably the ultimate storage solution for the price available today. For little more than the cost of a 1 terabyte EVO or a 960GB M500, you can have twice the performance to go along with all that luscious capacity.
RAIDing two or more drives together provides you with storage that takes performance to the next level and is something I recommend you try. Once you go RAID, there's no going back."
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5801/samsung-840-evo-500gb...
But I have never tried it, so i cannot say for myself...
Anyone else have any thoughts on that?
Richard Graham wrote:It's true you would double your chances of hard disk failure if you were to stripe (rather than mirror) a pair of SSDs using RAID. I suppose in favour of the idea, your sample instruments would load in half the time.
OTOH, wouldn't it be possible to do a mirrored RAID on two SSDs that halved the chance of failure, by duplicating (rather than splitting) the data across the two drives, and also provided twice the throughput by reading complementary parts of the data off the two disks in parallel?
Maybe that's what this form of RAID does, I don't know?
Johnny H wrote: If you want to halve your potential for hard drive failure and still be able to run virtually unlimited audio tracks and sample streams then one SSD will serve you perfectly well.
Richard Graham wrote:It's true you would double your chances of hard disk failure if you were to stripe (rather than mirror) a pair of SSDs using RAID.
Johnsy wrote:Johnny H wrote: If you want to halve your potential for hard drive failure and still be able to run virtually unlimited audio tracks and sample streams then one SSD will serve you perfectly well.Richard Graham wrote:It's true you would double your chances of hard disk failure if you were to stripe (rather than mirror) a pair of SSDs using RAID.
If the overall capacity is the same, the data risk profile is identical.
Consider a) a single 500GB SSD vs. b) 2 x 250GB SSDs in Raid 0 (striped)
In both cases, the failure of a single drive results in the loss of 500GB of data.
(Raid 0 offers the incidental advantage that in case b), you're still the owner of a functional 250GB drive; so while your data is no safer, your hardware investment is better protected.)
johnny h wrote:The chances of failure of each drive is the same.
If you are using 2 drives, the chance of data loss in this setup is therefore doubled.
Johnsy wrote:(Raid 0 offers the incidental advantage that in case b), you're still the owner of a functional 250GB drive; so while your data is no safer, your hardware investment is better protected.)
Johnny h wrote:I don't think that's much of an advantage. Storage costs come down all the time, so your 250GB drive will almost certainly be worth less than when you bought it. Its better to get a fast Samsung PCI SSD, make sure its backed up properly and forget about RAID altogether.
Johnsy wrote:johnny h wrote:The chances of failure of each drive is the same.
Precisely. The likelihood of the failure of any SINGLE drive is the same.If you are using 2 drives, the chance of data loss in this setup is therefore doubled.
No. It would only be doubled if the simultaneous failure of two drives was equally as likely as the failure of a single drive - but of course it isn't.
A 250GB SSD is a 250GB SSD. It's 'worth' more than nothing. As for whether one strategy is better than another, that depends on many factors.
johnny h wrote:The failure of 1 of 2 drives is twice as likely as the failure of 1 of 1 drives
