New SSD's for him and her

[Dbiggs9]

2 of my rigs are in need of new SSD's the only SSD i have used are Crucial.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147249 Qty 2-4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148821 Qty 2-4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820173013 Qty 2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147251 Qty 2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W01V37971 Qty 1 Also i would not be able to get a GM210 core Gpu might even have to sleep in the spare room.

 

[McSteel]

The MX100s are the best value for money ATM (price/performance+longevity), and should be reliable enough not to lose sleep over.

 

[Dbiggs9]

Someone told me the MX100 should not be in Raid 0

 

[McSteel]

If we're being pedantic, no non-enterprise/datacenter drive should be in RAID. Which is ironic, since it used to mean a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Nowadays it's been changed to "Individual", to account for the fact that the cheapest available disks aren't exactly reliable and fit for the purpose.

I do believe you won't see any issues using MX100s in a RAID0 setup. Anandtech did test the 256 and the 512 GB varieties, and they're diligent enough to point out a glaring shortcoming such as being unsuitable for RAID.

That and I've already installed a bunch of these in different customers' machines, though all of them RAID1... Still, usually when you hear that a drive is unfit for RAID it means that it's response latency goes over what the RAID controller will tolerate, or that power loss means data integrity loss; which it doesn't in MX100, they're capable of writing out their buffer before going down. However, any data in transit to the buffer or to the controller does get lost, but without endangering data already present on the NAND.