ssd vs raid1 scsi ultra 320

gigeorge · 23 Feb 2010 at 11:28

Hi,
Quick daft question:
Currently run a raid 1 scsi ultra 320 with windows vista ultimate on, its quick enough for loading os/games etc.
But cant install win 7 on it due to lack of driver support for the raid card, have tried fudging it with server 08 driver - didnt work so well..

Would a ssd be any quicker than my current setup in all scenarios & by how much...?

Other thoughts including getting a SAS controller and running a SAS drive instead of ssd.

gigeorge · 25 Feb 2010 at 22:11

Looks like the scsi's faster, just need a scsi ultra 320 card thats supported by 7..

VaderDSL · 25 Feb 2010 at 22:14

You will always be limited by mechanical drives. SSDs will be quicker for random writes I imagine and general snapiness. But sustained reads/writes might not be as good as raided SCSI drives.

I really want an SSD but I'm going to wait until later in the year, I will consider then once they are cheaper/larger storage.

gigeorge · 25 Feb 2010 at 22:20

Why dont people look to use SAS drives then considering the drives + cards wouldnt be much more exp than ssd?

VaderDSL · 25 Feb 2010 at 22:29

SAS drives are still mechanical and are generally used in enterprise/server I think. SSD's while expensive are at the beginning of their life, they will only continue to drop in price and increase in capacity.

At the moment a SSD is expensive but it can offer much better performance easier and without requiring any specialist add on cards etc.