Couple of hard disk questions

[PeterAit]

My photo computer uses two mechanical HDs in RAID 0 for boot and programs. I am considering replacing them with one or more SSDs to get a performance boost and to avoid potential problems with relatively old disks.

1) Would a single SSD be noticeably faster than the current RAID setup?
2) Is there any point in putting 2 SSDs in RAID 0?

Thanks for any information.

[stamper]

Is this in relation to PS and LR? I considered getting a SSD for both programs but changed my mind. PS would start quicker from my research but wouldn't run quicker. The SSD would be useful for a scratch disc. More RAM would benefit PS. There are others more knowledgable than me that will answer this.

[E.J. Peiker]

1) Yes a single SSD (SATA 3 - 6Gb/s) is faster than any HD RAID 0 setup
2) While you can certainly set it up that way, the performance increase you will see is very small.

[kers]

A SSD is far better in finding fast little things... for instance emails- startup your computer- programs etc...
Once opened they are in RAM. This means the next time you open the program it will be opening fast anyway SSD or whatever.
Your raid0 is very good at opening large files like photoshop files. You can put three disks in a raid 0 to speed up more and have large volumes. ( make sure you have a good backup as well)
Maybe you can save time by having your system on a SSD and your data on the raid0.
This is also an economical outcome. You need only a120 gb or 240 Gb SSD for the system and put the data on the Raid0.

ideally you could put all data on PCI connected memory but that is still expensive when it comes to large volumes.

An other way to improve your computer is putting a lot of RAM in it. it will also be used as fast memory of things you already opened /did.
I am on a 7 years old Macpro 8 core and it is still really fast because of alll of this. the jump to the new macpro results in 1.5-2x faster but also expensive and a lot of extra costs on additional stuff you need to connect.
Putting 2 SSD's in a raid 0 could improve the speed; Depends how old your system is - you need 6bgb sata connections. ( say after 2009/2010)

[studio347]

I use a good 1T ssd which is partitioned to three, 1)OS_software, 2)office stuff, 3)images where working image files are located. And back_up regularly. Partition in this case is very good for managing files~
Simple and fast~
Enough ram is very important too.

[Conner999]

An SSD RAID will > HD RAID w/same no. of disks, but as one poster mentioned/implied, you get into diminishing returns re: real-world performance improvement vs cost. More RAM and a fast scratch for Photoshop use will save you more time for the same or less $$$

Since once open, the Mac OS (making assumption here) will keep a program in memory for faster-reopening, an SSD RAID is not only 2x the points of failure but maybe bordering on overkill unless you're opening/closing different programs a LOT.

I'd be tempted to move to 1 SSD for boot/programs and another (assuming a 3G connection to exploit it) as a scratch disk & maybe a boot clone (via 2 segment partition) of first SSD in case of issues?

My pair of 16Gb RAM 2.2GHz MBP 8.2s (late '11) use solo 3G SSD for boots & apps and opening apps. is almost instant.

[armand]

Right now I'm using :
1. 1 500GB SSD for the system
2. 3 SSD (~ 1TB each) arranged as a storage space in Win8 (roughly equals 1 3TB SSD)
3. 1 4TB HDD for internal backup
4. Synology backup via ethernet

Initial loading is fast but many times it doesn't feel that much faster compared to a old school HDD. It is noiseless though which I enjoy and I'm already on it for more than a year that it doesn't make sense to go back to HDD, ever.