>>54683480
SSD wins because sequential transfer rate (which is what putting hard drives in RAID 0 improves) is not what makes them faster. What makes SSDs faster is that there is no seek time or rotational latency. An HDD gets a request and then takes several milliseconds - an eternity to a CPU - to position the heads and wait for the platters under them to rotate to the correct position. An SSD doesn't have this problem, and RAID does not ameliorate it.

>>54683567
is raid 0 still a significant improvement though to just one HDD?

>>54683567
That's true. But don't you just like the sound of an old time spinner? Nothing like the sound of analogue. Just look at that needle up there in that image.

>>54683603
Not really, no. Sequential transfer rates are important for copying large files, running disk benchmarks, and not much else. For everything else, the SSD's dramatically lower latency is far, far more important. And SSDs have large sequential transfer rates anyway.

The only area where hard drives beat SSDs is where speed is unimportant but capacity, especially capacity per dollar, is important. They're for storing bulk files that don't need to be fast. Don't waste time trying to make them fast.

>>54683619
only the real old ones. Those monster full-height drives from 386s sounded cool.

>>54683638
i'm trying to do music production but i have gigabyte level samples that take ages to dump into memory. i was thinking raid 0 might help.

>>54683659
I mean, if you happen to have hard drives lying around and want to put them in RAID 0 to see if that helps, by all means try it. But if you're considering buying a drive, you shouldn't be considering spinning-disc storage unless you need so much storage that SSDs are financially infeasible. Even if thats the case what you should be doing is to have an SSD for your OS, applications, and whatever files you're actively working on, and then an HDD for storing all the files that you aren't currently working on.

Lets say HDD has 10,000 RPM instead of standard 7200 RPM, this would be around 150 MBps in speed.

If you have a raid, this becomes 300 MBps.

Lets get SSD, they average around 500 MBps and upto 3000+ MBps on those high end m2 drives.


>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236243
Newegg's 1 TB 10,000 RPM HD costs about $375.

>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226596
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820173013
Newegg's 1 TB SSD costs about $220-$250.


This maybe bit unfair, so lets scale down the HDD to make it more efficient.

>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178741

4TB HDD 5900 RPM is about $100 @ around 120 MBps

Lets say we have 3 of these together, thats about 360 MBps of 4TB HDD for $300. Not too bad. Still too bulky for my needs. If I really wanted, I'd simply go for 1 of these HDD for data storage and 1 SSD for fast OS/commonly used games.

>>54683480
If you don't plan to have backups, recovery of data is practically impossible from dead SSD's.
Also depends on if you need the storage,

Otherwise SSD is better.

>>54683480
how about 4 RAID0 SSDs?

>>54683480
2 raid 0 HDDs, it'll still last longer before failing than the SSD

>>54683480
both (use the ssd as a zfs log/l2arc or with bcache, aka, use the ssd as a read/write cache for the hdd's)

>>54683810
Expanding on this...
10k drives aren't really a good choice anymore. Once they start to fill up their performance advantage over normal drives declines, there are very few situations where they should be chosen over SSD's. For a regular desktop SSD is always going to be a better choice than 10k.

>>54683480
Maybe 2 15K SAS drives would beat a single SSD out in sequential.
SSD would win in any other real world senario though with higher IOPs and better mixed r/w.

I had 6 hard drives in RAID0 and a SSD was still faster

>>54684742
It's not 2009 anymore.
Modern SSDs will outlive hard drives