Why no option for SSDs in RAID 1?

I notice that you can configure the m17x-R2 with RAID 0 + SSDs but not RAID 1.

• 256 GB RAID 0 using 2x 128 GB SSDs
• 512 GB RAID 0 using 2x 256 GB SSDs

Clevo/Sager offer RAID 1 using SSDs. Why would Dell not offer SDDs in a RAID 1?

Has anyone ordered SSDs in RAID 0 and then rebuilt using RAID 1?

 

never done it myself,but if you plan on a fresh OS install when getting the laptop (something i always do and recommend anyway) it's not a problem to change the RAID config and then go ahead and reinstall...

 

Probably because the cost and no gain in performance. You lose the roughly 2x speed increase of RAID 0, the 2x capacity factor and considering the cost of a SSD now, you're basically paying 2x the price/GB, which is not even cost effective. You're really better off getting RAID 0 and just be sure to do backups to cheap, external HDD's.

 

The SSD cost is the same between RAID 0 and RAID 1.

I am aware of the capacity issues and the trade-off of performance using RAID 0 verses data redundancy of RAID 1.

I prefer the RAID 1 in case I am using the laptop remotely and I experience a failed SSD that does not stop me from continuing to use the laptop.

I agree that no matter which HDD/SSD solution you configure, non-RAID or RAID, that you should backup your data. However, if one drive fails in RAID 0, you have lost the use of your system, not just the data.

The point I am making is Dell should allow their customers to decide which SSD configuration is more important to them verses forcing them to use RAID 0 when using SSDs. It will not cost Dell any additional money to allow the option of RAID 1 with SSDs.

 

^^ totally agree with you there

 

I completely understood your point, but you asked a question, and I was just giving my .02 worth.

Regarding the cost, I compared the cost PER GB, not just the raw cost of the SSD's. In your case, RAID 1 would run you roughly $1050 for 256GB of storage. That is twice the price of a single 256GB SSD (which already has an extreme $/GB), and about 10x the price of a RAID 1 HDD pair.

Maybe they should offer it, but who knows what the hidden costs are to have yet another SKU and more prebuilt systems with that configuration if not many are going to opt for a 256GB $1000+ option...

 

I appreciate your reply and I hope my reply was not taken in a negative tone. I should have added a to set the tone.

Given the vast array of options a person can chose when configuring a custom laptop, I thought Dell's business model was build-to-order with some basic models as prebuilt.

Costs are subjective to the buyer's needs or desires like buying a premium laptop like Alienware.

 

If there were RAID 1 SSD options for half price, like I got my Alienware laptop, I would concur. I'd no sooner buy a full priced RAID 1 SSD than I would a full priced Alienware laptop!

Not sure they'd do it right anyways. Three M17xR2's that were supposed to be RAID 0 were actually JBOD/AHCI. Had some cloning to do!!

 

Don't SSD have extremely low failure rates? The only advantage of RAID 1 would be to prevent data loss in the event of failure, correct? I see RAID 1 SSDs as a little redundant.

 

I originally choose RAID 0 setting becasue of the storage capacity. After the RAID fail, I learn to use 2 different drivers with an external eSATA storage. I still want the speed of RAID, so I end up with SSD. I always make a backup of OS once system is set to go.

PS. You can choose RAID 1 setting, but you need to cal in to order instead of online.

 

Answers:
Q1: The lifespan of SSDs are lower than HDDs based on the number of writes to the drive and the consumer grade SSDs are lower than enterprise grade SSDs.

IDF 2009 MEMS003

Q2: In addition to prevention of data loss, RAID 1 will allow you to continue using the system in case one drive fails.

Time will tell regarding the reliability of SSDs in terms of years of use. I have HDD drives that have lasted 10+ years and other HDDs that failed within 2 or 3 years under the same disk activity.

A memory cell can go bad causing failure if the cell held data or OS files.

Again, my point is Dell should offer SSDs in RAID 1 as an option and let their customers chose the storage option that fits their needs.

 

SLC SSDs have replaced HDDs for mission critical devices and have been proven to be reliable for the past 2-3 decades. Current consumer MLC SSDs are a lot cheaper than SLC SSDs but due to their relative recent introduction, reliability has only been theorized. It's unfair to generalize SSD technology just as you cannot generalize HDDs - both can potentially fail in a few years or last 10+ years without issue. Since most consumers don't keep their systems for 10+ years though, MLC SSDs have become an excellent alternative to HDDs as their performance is generally superior in every way compared with HDDs with the exception of cost (per GB, to be more accurate), and their unknown reliability isn't as much of an issue.

 

View the Intel link below to see the difference between the "M" consumer grade and "E" for enterprise grade SSDs made by Intel.

IDF 2009 MEMS003

I agree with your point that both SSDs and HDDs can experience premature failure. However, the consumer level HDDs has a proven record verses consumer level SSDs.

The SSD technology is still evolving. Intel's G3 (third generation SSDs) are due out by end of this year.

No doubt, that depending on which consumer SSD generation you are using will result in different lifespan results and reliability.

Based on reviews I have read, early adopters in 2008 & 2009 paid a price for the failures of the consumer grade SSD drives.

 

Their MTFB is usually between 1-2million hours. When they first came out there were tons of issues, now however, they're about as reliable as normal HDD's, maybe a little more than most.

I don't think they should, the shear idea is...putting it nicely, abnormal.

Your request seems counter-productive in a gaming computer where performance is valued more than redundancy, espically when talking about people willing to spend the $$$ on SDD's. It's just appealing to an extremely limited audience that would rather have RAID 1 SSD's than put that extra $700 to use, have double HDD read/write performance and just back up data on a $60 500GB normal HDD. Granted the choice is a 0 cost option to Dell, but if you really want it as other's have pointed out, nothing is stopping you from doing it, as awkward as it sounds. The phrase, anything is possible with money and a will comes to mind.

 

It is the amount of writes to the drive that determines the SSD's lifespan. How many writes do you perform in a given day/week/month/year?

How often does Windows or other applications perform writes? For SSDs, it is all about the number of writes. The Intel link I provided does not even talk about lifespan in hours, only writes.

Not everyone purchases "gaming" machines for games. People use them as desktop replacement systems instead of gaming machines due to various features offered that do not exist on desktop replacement systems. IMO, some desktop replacement systems are so over the top by using desktop CPUs or lacking certain types of ports.

For those consumers that would like to use SSDs in RAID 1, why make the customer go through all the trouble of ordering RAID 0, attempt to backup everything to restore to the RAID 1 configuration. In the case of resintall, we have seen a lot of posts from people attempting to get the correct installation order performed correctly.

There is nothing wrong with having the choice.

 

Regardless of what people use them for, it's the primary market for our systems and that's what Dell advertises and accommodates for. People throw Big block v8's into Geo's for fun, should Geo have made all their cars RWD to make it easier for those people? Besides, the Precision M6500 is a DTR too(and a better one at that), should dell offer Consumer level graphics cards on top of the professional graphics cards they already do? They have the cards, and I'm 100% certian any M17x MXM card would work in a Precision M6500, so that would be of very little cost to dell to implement, but they don't, because if you want a gaming laptop, you'd buy an m17x

again, it should be there, since it would cost Dell almost nothing to do from the factory anyway, but I can understand why it's not. It's a totally different than what 95% of people would want, and giving the customer too many choices is just as bad as too.

 

We know that SSDs are not infallible. Why does Dell offer RAID 1 using HDDs for a gaming system if performance is the sole goal?

As prices fall on SSDs in the future, by your reasoning, RAID 1 is going to be obsolete. I do not share that opinion regarding RAID 1 with SSDs.

I believe as SSDs technology and lifespan continue to improve and as prices fall, the SSDs will overtake HDDs. However, I believe that RAID 0/1 options will still be available no matter which drive technology is used.

 

because MHDD's offer a lot more space and are a lot cheaper than SSD's to replace.

price falls in response to demand and manufacturing costs. Ie, by the time it's affordable the drives will probably be too small, or offer 'average' performance compared to the rest of the computing world. Not sure what reasoning you're using to come to your conclusion however. If the maximum size and speed of drives stayed constant over years maybe that would be true, but they don't, and neither do customer demands for more space. Ten years ago 80GB was waaay more HDD space than I needed. Now I have 211GB of data usage just on my M17x and another 1+TB on backup.

I agree, but not in 1,2, or 3 years..Seagate proved with the XT that hybrid drives are a viable medium, so who knows if those will populate to replace real MHDD's instead of SSD's just taking over everything. The fact of the matter is, affordable SSD's are small, real small, smaller than anyone with a photo album with more than 20 pictures is going to want. So they're going to buy computers with big HDD's, which means MHDD's..

 

You did not answer my question if m17x is strictly a gaming system, then why does Dell even offer RAID 1?

I do not expect HDDs capacities to remain stagnant.

The G3 Intel SSDs with be in 160gb, 320gb and 600gb in Q4 2010.

There is a tipping point when people prefer the SSD performance over the higher capacity of HDD. I am guessing once PC users get a taste and accustom to the nearly instant response of their applications using SSDs, they will never want to go back to HDDs.

My guess is once the price gets to about $1/GB for SSDs.

 

because again, MHDD's are no longer associated with performance. No one wants to spend the $$$ on 2 SSD's and then effectively half the performance in the name of redundancy. As I suggested before, a $60 hard drive accomplishes the same thing. the Raid 1 in MHDD is for people that might want or need Raid 1(which are typically people concerned about backup rather than reads or writes), and those people generally have a lot of stuff they need to not lose, which means they need a lot of space, which is something SSD's do *not* offer. I jumped on a $160 96GB Vertex 1 without thinking a few days ago, but then decided to return it since it's only 30-40% better than my RAID 0 array and that I'll have to sacrifice a lot of storage space. I'll just save for a very fast 256GB drive or maybe 2 and buy them later.

I agree, but as it's apparent in today's SSD's market, there are many levels of SSD' performance, some are not much better than a 7200RPM MHDD for a lot less storage space.

for how fast a SSD is the question, a hybrid drive easily matches the performance of lots of value SSD's, and the SSD's in use in some netbooks is *far* lower than even a 5400RPM drive.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on RAID 1. I do not see RAID 1 as being offered by Dell only in HDDs because the customer is unwilling to pay the cost in SSDs. Other people may be willing to spend the money to use SDDs in RAID 1. It is merely a choice. It may not be your choice, but it should be an option.

Agree. My understanding is it has to do with the controller. Sandforce vs Indilinx vs Intel controllers.

 

I don't disagree, I actually did say I think they should have it there, it's just I can understand why they wouldn't, and I was trying to provide reasons why. You *can* have RAID 1 SSD's in the precision M6500. Also, I think you're forgetting about SSD performance degradation over time, even with Trim, unless Dell is using some brand spanking new controller drives, a total backup and secure erase are required comparatively often to revert the drive back to 'out of the box performance' and if you have a RAID 1 and are backing that up, what's the point of the RAID 1?

 

Even with SSD degradation, people are still going to be happy with the nearly instant response when using their applications. The SSD technology is still evolving and we will see the bottleneck shifting from the drive throughput to the bus speed being the limiting factor between drive and CPU.

You perform backups for RAID 1 due to hardware, software or user errors that results in loss of data. The very same reasons companies backup their data that reside on SANs using RAID 10 (0+1). I image my OS out to an external drive in case a patch causes more problems than it solves which can sometimes take days or weeks to manifest itself. Or I try a new tweak to the system that goes horribly awry.

 

Websurfer,

I think you are missing the obvious point. Since Dell does offer RAID 1 using traditional HDD's, the only logical reason they don't is cost! It just isn't cost effective. Like Lozz said, they cannot put up every possible combination of hardware for every sector to pick and choose from. The M17x is a GAMING system. The Precision M6500 is a professional desktop replacement. Guess what? RAID 1 SSD's are a choice on the M6500. Why, because it's targeted at the professional sector, and more than likely will contain important work data.

Also, regarding failure rates, etc., while others were speaking of failure rates, you're quoting lifespans. I see there is a difference. Lifespans are the normal, useful life of a drive. Failure rates are how often the drive suffers and unexpected, catastrophic, data-loss failure. The mere fact that SSD's have no moving parts lowers it's chance of failure significantly. No drive crashes, no motor failures, no mechanical failures. You have to agree that without those, SSD's stand a better chance of running longer without failure. Plus, there are certainly some crappy HDD's out there that are just known problems waiting to happen. Current SSD's, I think, are relatively proven, and firmware fixes are easier to apply to fix any issues or add features.

Without a Dell top level manager telling us why there isn't RAID 1 SSD's on the M17x, no one knows for sure. BUT, I think, given the reasoning others and myself have posted, it comes down to cost and the target market for these units.

 

Hello Lancorp,

I get the point that you and Lozz do not want to spend your money on the expensive SSDs in a RAID 1 configuration. You both feel no one else will spend their money on SSDs in RAID 1. Maybe you both are right. Nevertheless, until Dell offers the option, Dell has no way of knowing which option is more popular. Moreover, Silversaver has already experienced RAID 0 failure that caused him pain. http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-m17x/499762-why-no-option-ssds-raid-1-a.html#post6473622

I can make the same argument that most people do not need the more expensive and hotter heat generating 920XM CPUs and X-fire GPUs to gain a few frames per second during gaming.

Personally, I would chose 820QM (waiting on 840QM for m17x) and the single 5870.

But, if you have the money and the hotter XM CPU and X-fire are important to you, go for it since you have the choice offered as options.

When I look at Sager gaming systems, they offer the choice of using SSDs in RAID 1 knowing that some customers will prefer this option. Why not Dell? As you pointed-out, that is a rhetorical question since Dell is the only one that can answer this question.

 

That's his fault, RAID 0 has natural risks involved.

Sager also offers Xeon processors and OpenGL GPU's in the same systems you're referring to... which ties into what I was saying earlier. Not mentioning the complete opposite advertising programs of both companies. Sager customers *know* what they are buying and what they want, Sager builds the barebones without regard to whether it would be better designed around a workstation concept or a gaming computer concept, they just build a big brick of plastic that has a bunch of features and buy both sets of parts so both parties can use the same bare bones. Dell builds separate systems to accommodate the different customer bases, and their parts selection in both computers reflects this. The Precision M6500 can do SSD's in Raid 1, it has 3 HDD bays, Open GL cards, and 4 DIMM's of Ram, it's just an overall more industrial computer, so naturally, it's parts bin is going to reflect that.

but anyway, I'm done pointing out stuff.

 

Just do what I do every time I get a new PC. Format the machine as soon as you get it.

That being said, it being an almost 0 cost change on Dell's end, I think they should offer it for those few that do want it. I mean they do offer a 900p screen alternative.. blegh!

 

If I am reading Silversaver's post correctly, he had SSDs in RAID 0 and apparently one of them failed. Now he is putting them in RAID 1.

Sager advertises its systems (specifically the 8760) as gaming systems.

The M6500 will cost over $900 more than the same configuration as the m17x system when I configured both systems. I notice that the M6500 does not have HDMI. Only VGA.

I noticed that M6500 offered Accidental Damage Service in addition to the Premium Service. Is Accidental Damage Service included with Alienware? I only see the Basic, Advanced and Premium Service choices on Alienware.

I configured M6500 without the Accidental Damage Service to compare prices between the two systems.

 

I'm going to jump in and just say that I think they don't offer RAID 0 online in SSDs because HDDs are much more fragile in terms of ability to damage them. Dropping the notebook from a few feet can result in physical damage to the platter. Not so with SSDs. Which is why I like SSDs in notebooks. Constant movement of the notebook can add to the risk of an HDD. In terms of reads/write failure and limits. The SSD will be outdated and probably upgraded before you reach the drives limit of writes IMO.

 

Yet another good viewpoint...while no technology is immune to failure, I don't think anyone would argue that SSD's are less prone than HDD's. Therefore, RAID 0 really becomes not as much a necessity as a preference, which the customer has, since the M17x can do RAID 1, but you are left to do it yourself.

 

What? Dell offers RAID 0 in SSDs or HDDs and currently offers RAID 1 in HDDs but not SSDs. I think you are in favor of SSDs being used in either RAID 0 or 1 since you believe SSDs are more resilient to shocks and movement of the laptop. Correct?

The Intel X-25M spec sheet from 160 GB drive shows writes of 36.5 TB and conservative number is 15 TB for random data writes.

 

I would think it was a mistype when it should have been said of RAID 1, not RAID 0. That is the topic, RAID 1, not RAID 0. And we all know Dell does offer RAID 0 SSD's.

 

I thought the same thing that it was a typo. However, even if you replace the 0 with a 1 in the sentence I bolded and reread it, he is making the point that SSDs are more resilient than HDDs in RAID 0 or 1 correct?

 

I believe he is stating that in general, SSD's are less fragile than HDD's, yes. I think most would concur. No moving parts removes a huge factor against reliability and accidental damage. Hence, his logic that RAID 1 is not as common with SSD setups (especially considering the cost, a point I brought up back on page 1). If SSD's were $100, then RAID 1 might be a more feasable option, but at their current high cost, few choose that route.

 

What I meant was RAID 1. THe advantage to RAID 1 is protection of data through redundency. Files are more likely to become currupted or damaged when constantly moved with a standard platter HDD. SSDs are not vulnerable in this way, and as a result it's almost pointless to pay double for the same space. Though an SSD isn't as physically fragile or vulnerable to movement, I would still recommend backups to an external HDD. Sorry for the typo