mSata 128go Crucial M4 or Raid 0 256go Crucial M4 or Raid 0 HDD ?

Hi!
I'm currently building a Xotic laptop, i'm wondering what's the best solutions. I'm mostly working on Lightroom and photoshop, with RAW and JPG images, editing go pro HD files with Premiere Pro, and gaming. Got between 2000$ to 2500$ budget for 15.6".

mSata 128go Crucial M4 or Raid 0 256go Crucial M4, where should I installed windows ? Where should I put my cache of lightroom-photoshop ?
Is it worth it for my use ? Maybe only a mSata + Raid 0 HDD is enough speed ?

Will i see a weight difference between Raid 0 SDD vs Raid 0 HDD ?

Thanks!

 

No one ?

 

First: forget RAID0. Period.

Second: Gaming not included (or considered) in the following setup:


O/S: Win8x64 PRO.

CPU: i7 3840QM or higher.

RAM: 32GB or more PC3-12800 SoDIMMs.

O/S mSATA SSD: 256GB M4 (partitioned to a single 150GB partition - remaining left 'unallocated' from FIRST USE).

Data SSD: 512GB M4 (partitioned to a single 275GB partition - remaining left as 'unallocated' from FIRST USE).


Install O/S + Programs to mSATA SSD, including LR4.2.1 library.

PS Scratch disks on both drives.

LR cache on SSD (not mSATA SSD).


Recommended: 2 external WD USB 3.0 My Passport backup drives (2TB each).


Hope this helps.

Good luck.

 

Useful comment on raid0 with 2 SSD units, thanks.

For others, a quick check on wiki shows "A RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits data evenly across two or more disks(striped) without parity information for speed. RAID 0 was not one of the original RAID levels and provides no data redundancy."

That is roughly 40% unallocated space on both an mSATA and 2.5" SSD drive!

I'll bite, what are LR and PS?

For doing backups of both the boot SSD and also of the data SSD?

Wouldn't it be way faster to do clone backups from the internal SSD units to a temp HDD plugged into the ODD bay? Say using boot via Clonezilla?

Count me as totally impressed that you're very polite.

I've now posted here on NBR only a small bit, learned more than a small bit, and am still learning to be as polite as possible.

Even given trying to be helpful, it doesn't take much to get people to bite you!

There is possibly 1 useful idea that I got from your above post.

I just placed an order for a Lenovo T530 (my 4th attempt at ordering 4 different Lenovo laptops, the 1st 3 successfully canceled (2 by me and one total screwup by Lenovo) with only minor pain and delay but no money lost); when the T530 shows up I'll remove the 500GB HDD drive (w/Win7-64 Pro on it) and set it aside. Then put in a 2.5" 512GB Crucial M4 SSD into the main bay. It hadn't occurred to me to consider also putting in a 256GB mSATA drive and making that the boot drive. I mean I don't have a WWAN device so the slot is open for a mSATA drive.

Any thoughts/advice on having a T530 notebook with a 256GB mSATA M4 boot (Win7-64 Pro) with a 512GB data M4 SSD?

I'd think I'd be able to plug in temp HDD units into the ODD space (via caddy) and do clone backups of both the boot mSATA SSD drive and also the data SSD drive.

True or false?

 

Why ? Is it that bad for what I want to do ? Is it why people with the Asus UX51 are getting rid of the raid 0 installed ?

Why leave so much space unused ? better performance ?

I'll probably go with a My Live Book Duo 6TB since I'm pretty scared to bring my 4 bay synology by place to China

Thanks for the other great details, it's helping a lot!

PS = photoshop
LR = lightroom

 

You need both drives to be able to access your data. If one drive fails, the whole array does, if your RAID controller fails, your data is lost, if your computer fails, you can't just pull the drives out of it and get your data back. Given how fast non RAID 0 SSDs are, why take the chance.

Yes, it especially matters if you use the drives extensively like tiller does. Anandtech has a piece on that and tiller has a thread on it at NBR too.

 

First; thanks for the nice comments (having a little knowledge doesn't mean we need to be mean, right?).

Secondly; yes... overprovision not only for performance - but for sustained performance over time.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...64-smartplacement-defragging-perfectdisk.html


Finally: I'm not suggesting the external drives for 'cloning' type backups (I find those MUCH more trouble than they're worth). No; I'm suggesting using both for backing up the SAME data (because the notebook will not fit it all after you've finished editing it).



As for the T530:
No changes to the recommendations already given - if this is meant to also 'drive' LR and PS as fast as possible (Win8x64 PRO, fastest i7 QC you can stuff in there without being thermally throttled, Max out the RAM with the fastest latencies you can find and overprovision the SSD's as much as you can (to still fit - with capacity to spare - the workload you are anticipating).


Hope I answered the questions fully?

 

Yes thanks a lot! I'll eagerly read your topic about SSDs.

I'll probably do the configuration you just said, seems pretty good hehe and it's good to be able to configure a Clevo/Sager the way you want, like with 32go and all

 

I've had a long time preference for 'cloning' type backups. But that may change with my new T530, which I hope to have by this coming Friday; I'll just have to wait and try different back up approaches.

Too late for the i7, but that's a mixed blessing in that it comes with the downside of more heat. However I did spend an extra $55 for an i5-3320M cpu (3M Cache, up to 3.30 GHz), over the base i5-3210M.

I've already concluded that I'll forget about getting 8GB (~$40) of memory, and go straight to 16GB (2 sticks of 8GB each; ~$80). IOW that having a large 2.5" SSD might get some extra benefit from having twice the memory on the laptop computer. And yes, that's the fast 1600 memory.

With regard to setting up the SSD with 30% unallocated, I'm still psyching up to that. Thankfully I got a 512GB M4 SSD. e.g. a few days ago I was OK with 20% unallocated; now kinda think that 25% might be OK, and figure that in a week I'll be at 30%.

BTW very nice detailed answers, thank you!

 

Glad to help.

The 'cloning' will of course benefit you much more if your system regularly crashes (mine don't). Or if you like testing different programs and then COMPLETELY removing them by imaging a cloned backup just before you installed the offensive program.

For DATA backup purposes, you might want to look into Windows 8 File History feature - along with a manual BU strategy (such as the simple but very effective SyncToy) - this is looking to be like the best and easiest backup strategy I have seen/used so far.


Note: if you wait for 2013... you'll be a firm believer of 50% overprovisioning - just like me.

Cheers!

 

Cloning a boot drive permits one to drop that drive into the machine and be functional (the new drive immediately boots) with a minimum of hassle.

"COMPLETELY removing" a large new program is another good reason for cloning, although truth be told I've only once used cloning a drive for that reason.

But that was with the old MBR partitioning scheme; and it is clear that I need/want to explore the new UEFI and GPT method of defining a disk.

I've seen that you are gung ho on using Windows 8, but I don't plan to tinker with Windows 8 until SP1 is released for it. Unless of course, there is some really compelling reason to move forward with it sooner.

Maybe I'm reading something in that's not there, but why does 2013 make any difference on the extent to which I leave unallocated space on a SSD drive?

 

OK I get the joke. Logical progression. Just call me slow.

I'll read through your thread again on this at: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...64-smartplacement-defragging-perfectdisk.html

I have to think that most of the improvement happens when you leave 25% of the SSD unallocated, and at best only a small extra amount happens (if any) when you leave 50% of the drive unallocated.

It's hard enough to get my head wrapped around not allocating 25-to-30% of a SSD drive, let alone not allocating 50% of it!

Anyhow I've got a lot going on for the next month: new laptop to get squared away, 1st SSD, 1st time going to 16GB of memory (old high mark was 8GB), and likely other stuff that'll happen as things progress.

Do you yet have any clue as to how different SSD controllers might affect the percentage amount that one decides to not allocate on a SSD drive? And is Win8 vs Win7 vs Linux any kind of factor?

 

First, tiller is one of the unique cases of SSD users. Unless you are doing constant writes to the SSD, and by that I mean ALL THE TIME, there is no need to overprovision by 40-50% as he suggests. I have had my Crucial and Samsung SSDs filled past 80% with no adverse affects. If you are paranoid, allocate 10% extra spare area and leave it be.

If you notice that anandtech article is absolute worse case scenario. It's 4k WRITE ONLY, no read performance was shown. So if you're concerned with absolute top write performance then yes, 40-50% spare area will help. Otherwise it's not worth the loss of SSD space. Read performance isn't affected by much with a full SSD.

Although with $2500 budget I would consider buying your own Crucial M4 512GB SSD. They're less expensive than most and are rock solid with great performance. With HD files I can only assume you'll be doing lots of large file writes and storing large files at least temporarily.

 

Nice response, thanks!

I transplanted your above comments and responded, in post #39, in Tiller's recent thread at: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...64-smartplacement-defragging-perfectdisk.html

 

lol. Tiller knows I don't agree with his philosophy, so you're sure to get a negative retort. Tiller really needs to invest in enterprise class SSD's but he refuses to. For 99.9% of the rest of us, consumer SSD's are more than adequate for our daily tasks and even heavy tasks. Just not 24/7 write performance.

 

Thanks for all your inputs guys!
I'm turning my self to XMG, and they are proposing the Samsung 840 Pro and the mSATA Samsung 830. Is it worth the upgrade ? Apparently the 840 Pro is a beast especially in 4K files compare to the others but I don't know about everyday use.
But i'm very concerned about Lightroom and big library (mostly of JPG but 30 000-50 000 files per catalogs). I think the development panel in Lightroom work a lot with small files compare to Video Editing for example. And on my desktop computer with 10000 rpm Velocirator with Lightroom Previews/Cache on in, it was taking some time to access the files in the development panel... Especially big panoramas but in JPG. (i7-4.4ghz behind and fast 7200rpm for the catalog and images)

So do you think it's worth it to go to the 840 Pro about that ? Both are in SATAIII.

Just to be sure, when you say LR4.2.1 library it's catalog + images right ? Previews/cache on SSD (not mSATA SSD), right ?

 

"Just to be sure..." - yeah it's LR4.3 now - but you have it right.


I'm not convinced about the Samsung 840 PRO's supposed 'superiority' (nor their mSATA counterparts) - I think that the performance falls off way too soon and can potentially be very laggy unless overprovisioned by 50% or more (even then, they're not stellar performers in consistency).

Do note though that I have not been able to test them (this is mostly from online reviews like Anandtech) myself.

See:
AnandTech - Exploring the Relationship Between Spare Area and Performance Consistency in Modern SSDs


The drives that I would most like to play with right now are the Corsair Neutron Series (and the GTX versions too) as they have the most consistent performance for the least spare area.

 

tiller is slightly crazed when it comes to SSD usage and performance. He uses the thing so much that without ridiculous amounts of free space the drives slow to a crawl in weeks

 

Yeah I'm not overly impressed with the 840 pro over the 830. I'm overly thrilled with overall price/performance of Crucial offerings. I do think the Samsung 830 is a superior drive to the Crucial M4, but not by a whole lot and not worth the extra cost.

 

Ok thank you guys for the precisions about the different models

 

'Don't agree with Tiller...', 'Tiller is slightly crazed...' lol... I must be here with all my friends!


I think I have to take back my possible recommendation for the Neutron Series SSD's from Corsair - at least when considered for mobile usage:

See:
AnandTech - Corsair Neutron & Neutron GTX: All Capacities Tested


While the performance (especially of the GTX versions) is something I still want in my desktop platforms - the power consumption (and related heat) will be an issue (I feel) in a notebook configuration.


Still the consistency of the performance is something that is highly intriguing to me (especially with 'only' 25% over-provisioning and the same high performance in the larger 480GB capacity).

I wish Anandtech would post their consistency performance data for the Intel 520 series drives like they have for the M4's (which the Neutron GTX's walk all over). Oh! We still need the consistency data for the 512GB M4 too from Anandtech!

As of this point I still think going into 2013 the ranking for mobile systems is the #1 Intel 520 240GB followed (not too closely) by the Crucial M4. This is when price, performance, reliability and power consumption (and heat...) are all taken into consideration.

All other SSD's are far, far below (imo).

 

Your Anandtech ref at the start of your post, has an extremely long list of competing SSD units!

And this page for power usage: AnandTech - Corsair Neutron & Neutron GTX: All Capacities Tested

Wow! Choices, delicious choices...

Perhaps some tutti-frutti with vanilla mint.

 

Hi! Final questions before ordering! I'll probably get the Clevo P150EM or Clevo W350ET.
I'm really hesitating guys, about the SSD and HDD. Is the mSATA in SATA III or II ? can't find the answer.

What do you think is better :

First solution :
mSATA Crucial M4 256go (windows / softs only right ?)
SSD Intel 520 480 go or Neutron GTX
Seagate 750 XT HYBRID

Second solution (that way i can get the Clevo W350ET if no use of mSATA)
SSD Intel 520 240 go (windows/soft)
SSD Intel 520 480 go
no mSATA (why should I if it's only SATA II ?)
Caddy : Seagate 750 XT HYBRID (but SATA II, is it a lot slower, it'll be mostly gopro movies and games on it)

Extrem :
SSD Intel 520 240 go (windows/soft ?)
SSD Intel 520 480 go
mSATA Crucial M4 256go (windows / softs but, slower than the 240 go...)
Caddy : Seagate 750 XT HYBRID


What do you think ? For windows/soft does SATA III makes a difference or not ?
Mainly my use are photo editing with lightroom (big library, 50000 files but mostly jpg), video editing of GoPro HD (so big files but not huge, that's why I'm considering the HDD), photoshop/autopano for panoramas, gaming.

Previously i got that answer, is it still good ?

Install O/S + Programs to mSATA SSD, including Lightroom library.

Photoshop/Premiere Pro Scratch disks on both drives.

Lightroom cache on SSD (not mSATA SSD).

But with the P150EM i can have 2 SSD + mSATA + HDD config if I want to, that's why i hesitate a lot. Is the Neutron GTX really a good choice ? Is it important to take the same brand of SSD if i take 2 of them ?

(PS : i don't care about the price if the performance's difference is interesting)

 

Glad you're asking - at least my opinion of the Plextor Neutron GTX has changed (note recommended for a notebook because of high power and possible heat issues).

How long will this system be used for (estimated, of course)?

If less than a couple of years - buy now.

If you think you'll be using it 3, 4 or more years from now - I would wait for the newly introduced SSD's.

The Crucial M500 Series is truly appealing and the prices should be excellent (after the first initial rush, of course).

960GB SSD capacity for less than $600 (or estimated $300 for 480GB):

See:
AnandTech - Micron/Crucial Announces M500 SSD Line of SSDs



This is a game changer - not so much the slightly faster speeds - but the huge (4x or more) increase in SSD capacity.

For 'proof' of how good this is at the beginning of 2013 - the Apple 'tax' on upgrading from a 256 to 768 is a cool $1K upgrade.

And that still is a full 256GB's worth of SSD less than the M500 offers (total nand capacity: ~12.7% is dedicated for use as spare area).


I don't know how much you 'need' this system right now - but judging by how leisurely your search for a new system is - I would recommend to wait at this point.

 

You raised a very good point! I plan to use it for 3-4 years yes.
Unfortunately i need the computer in mi-february or so because i comeback to Europe to pick it up, but i don't need to buy now all the SSD. Will the new SSD will be compatible with Clevo P150EM or Clevo W350ET ? SATA III apparently so probably yes and that would be a blast!
I can manage to live 6 month only with the Seagate 750 XT HYBRID for example. Do you think it can be worth it ?

 

I would wait (patience...).

I would also not jump on the first available M500 you find for sale (patience...) - first, make sure that any showstopper bugs are not suddenly discovered in the new drives.

But when you do dive in to the SSD 'waters' at 480GB or 960GB capacities - boy will it feel good!