Crucial MX200 250GB RAID0 & RAID1 Review

[section_title title=”RAID0 & RAID1 Performance & Final Thoughts”]

RAID0 & RAID1 Performance & Final Thoughts

CrystalDiskMark is a disk benchmark software that analyses different types of hard drive. Giving sequential benchmark write and read statistics in MB/s. A simple program that is very useful. Each RAID array was built from scratch using

Each RAID array was built from scratch using LSI’s Disk Management Suite and tested thoroughly to get the below results. Please note that JBOD stands for “just a bunch of disk” and we tested single drive performance as a comparison using the Z170 Intel SATA controller. Everything else including all RAID testing was done via the LSI MegaRAID card. The reason we used the LSI MegaRAID and not Intel’s Z170 chipset is we didn’t want to have any issues of bottlenecks; to show the maximum amount of performance available.

As you can see from the graphs above, the results are phenomenal, to say the least; even in RAID1 which may surprise many. When talking about RAID0 v RAID1, a lot of people associate RAID1 as being all about redundancy, but due to how the mirrored array reads, it can actually perform slightly faster in terms of read. Of course, RAID1 loses all associated write performance, but you do have the extra bonus of having a full drive dedicated to backing up your data.

Touching on the maximum read and write performance of the Crucial MX200’s in RAID0 and RAID1, we can see that as more drives are added, RAID0 takes a noticeable jump over RAID1; although if you only have 2 drives, the read speed performance won’t be too different. To get maximum performance from RAID arrays, we recommend using a dedicated RAID controller like we have today; it shows performance without any latency issues or bottlenecking which is apparent when using chipsets such as Intel’s own.

Final Thoughts

With the introduction of NVMe enabled solid state drives such as the Samsung SM951, it’s been an exciting time for those who appreciate storage performance. I think the main question here is “do RAID0 setups match the worth of NVMe?”

With the Samsung 951 having rated read speeds of 2150MB/s and write speeds of 1260MB/s, it’s going to take a hefty RAID0 to match that. Well, it’s good news because 4 x Crucial MX200 250GB drives in RAID0 does beat this with speeds of 2340MB/s on the read, although somewhat coming up short in write performance. Another factor is, 4 x 250GB SSD’s gives you around 900-1TB of fast storage space, whereas an equivalent sized NVMe option will cost far greater; a 512GB Samsung 951 currently costs around £200 which isn’t much cheaper than 4 x 250GB Crucial MX200 drives.

At the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference, and if you want redundancy then NVMe isn’t going to give it to you; RAID0 will however do that and still perform very well. RAID1 is a better option however at the cost of actual storage; the drives are mirrored so effectively the 2^nd drive is a clone of the 1^st, but the array will run with lower write speed performance. If you had to go with SSDs for RAID0/1/5/0+1, then you aren’t going to get any better than the Crucial MX200. They might not quite be NVMe, but they certainly won’t destroy your wallet. If you are using the motherboards chipset, you may experience slightly lower speeds due to bandwidth maxing out or bottlenecking issues, but a semi-decent RAID controller can be picked up quite cheaply.