what's better ? one 60 gb SSD (solid state drive) or two 30gb SSDs ?
should i get one for the operating system and another for some apps/games ? or should i just get one bigger and put everything on it ?
4
-
7if you're buyin', i'll take 2 please!– quack quixoteMay 12, 2010 at 15:47
-
Count me in. :P– ApacheMay 12, 2010 at 16:00
-
1possible duplicate: superuser.com/questions/64129/one-large-or-two-smaller-ssds– sblairMay 13, 2010 at 17:14
-
Two is better than one.– surfasbDec 5, 2011 at 7:13
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
RAID 0 won't get along with TRIM
-
2
-
2@Troggy: It should be, but Cyrcle probably doesn't know that because they have less than 50 rep and therefore can't comment. May 12, 2010 at 19:24
-
@Chris: Good point, but this could really use some link to reputable testing or report to back up this statement. Even as a comment, it still needs some more information.– TroggyMay 12, 2010 at 19:35
-
5
-
1@davr And also note that the newest answer to that question correctly points out that some Intel storage controllers will pass TRIM to (non-RAID) SSDs, even if the controller is in RAID-mode.– sblairMay 13, 2010 at 17:10
If you get two, you can put them into Raid0. 0 means the amount of data that you will be able to recover after a failure. :P Or a raid1 which provides a good security against data loss. OR you can use one as a system drive and one for other stuff.. I don't really see a point in that. (However, if you tend to use Windows 7 (you should use that since its optimised for SSD), it'll eat your 30gb with a single bite. You should take the 60gb or two 30gb with RAID0 :))
Have a look at http://www.anandtech.com/show/3618/intel-x25v-in-raid0-faster-than-x25m-g2-for-250 - they tested this scenario.
I have 2 laptops with SSDs, one of them also has a spinning drive for all my junk. I'd go for 1 big drive in a laptop, please yourself in a desktop if you have space. That decision could depend more on cost and availability than on performance differences which may, or may not be noticeable.
2x SSDs won't be twice as fast as one and it won't be twice the difference from spinning rust. The 1st SSD is the order-of-magnitude difference, the 2nd is hte icing on the cake.
-
Update: I have 2 SSDs on my desktop now. One is for the OS & the other is for VMs. This combo works very well. Feb 16, 2011 at 19:33
The point I would see is that you can have your OS/software on one device and data files, on the other device, both devices potentially transmitting/receiving AT THE SAME TIME. As those are slower ones than RAM, if everything is going through the same channel (CODE and DATA), you may experience delays that you could avoid if the bits were traveling on TWO different chips at the same time.
I guess this also depends on the amount of disk access you plan to have if you run Window$, chances are that you will have lots of accesses to OS/software. Also, this means that you can keep your data on a separate device that you can take to other computers, without requiring that you move your OS too.
JF
answered May 20, 2010 at 12:19
if your are looking for performance gains by having your OS on a SSD, I would recommend that. However if you are going to be using windows rather than linux, you may run into an issue about drive size once you start installing programs after installing the OS. What I would do is buy a SSD for the OS drive and the other would be a regular HDD as large as possible for just plain storage - have the OS boot of the SSD for quicker booting times and the large storage space on the other drive.
-
Or the other way round. I'm booting maybe twice a week, so it's more important for me to get my data fast. YMMV. Feb 15, 2011 at 5:50