Yeah correct me if i'm wrong, but my way of thinking as far as multiple drives is like this, certainly every SATA 3 channel should have it's own SSD (some mobo have only 1 others 2 or 3), but you could also have 1 on slave and 1 on master of each channel, and if theoretical bandwidth of SATA 3 is around 786MB/s per channel and the fastest SATA III SSD's are doing 500-550MB/s tops, you will never max out the channels bandwidth with say 1 256GB drive on master and a blu-ray on slave. But if you have 2 x 128GB drives that are as fast, on the same channel, 1 could be doing OS stuff and the other doing games or VM stuff at 393MB/s each. If only one drive is accessing the channel it runs wide open 550MB/s.. That's better than OS and games/VM on the same 256GB drive and getting 550MB/s per process alone but if they have to split the drives bandwidth and not the channels, they get only 275MB/s each.
Those are sustained read figures and random and iops matter more but it's easier to work the math this way and I figure the principal is the same
That would just be parallel drives without RAID, yes. I've never messed with RAID to be honest. If you put 2x128GB (550MB/s) drives in RAID 0 would you get 256GB @ 768MB/s???
I think 1 benefit of just parallel drives is you can boot the other from BIOS if you want to boot your VM natively.
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
Short stroking won't hold a candle to what a SSD will do.
but it's making the most of what you have, and what else are you going to do with so many SATA II channels?Edited by WOD35 - 8/14/13 at 7:38pm