# Is Raid 0 worth it?



## sn2x (Aug 13, 2016)

I got a good deal on two 850 EVOs(500 GBx2, ended up around $240 combined) and was going to put them in RAID 0 and put Windows 10 on it, but after searching online a lot of people seem to think that doing this would be a bad idea...

If I did it I would be using the Intel RAID that is supported by my motherboard...


----------



## Folterknecht (Aug 13, 2016)

It's indeed a bad idea.

You only gain in seq. read/write with no other device in your PC able to reach these numbers, while at the same time putting your whole OS (and data) on that raid volume at risk. Power goes out at the wrong moment? Say goodbye to your OS ... .


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2016)

NO... a single SSD is fine IMHO. The issue with RAID0 is if one drive fails you lose ALL of your data on both drives as every other bit is written to the other drive. Part of how the speed increase works. I have also seen and experienced increases in seek times with RAID 0 SSD setups...part of the SSD's "instant" access magic is finding the data you want instantly (or close to it for our needs at the moment). 

Honestly, you'll increase your risk of failure and really not gain too much in noticeable performance aside from load times in games... and really a single SSD for gaming should handle that well. I went from over a minute on Star Citizen to seconds on my Samsung 850 EVO for example. Non-RAID.

IF you insist on RAID 0, at LEAST hook your PC up to a decent UPS so your data has enough time to finish writing in the case of a power outage. Also, this doesn't negate the possibility one of the drives fails for whatever reason(s). 

You could consider doing a RAID 1, which would be mirrored...so if one drive fails, the other one picks up right away. That would be the only thing I'd do in your situation if you insist on a dual-SSD RAID array. Though I've lost data from failed arrays, I deal with so many various arrays for work as well... I see no point in going purely for performance when there's so much risk involved that totally negates it. You could add a 3rd drive and do a RAID5, you'll lose about 30% of your storage space...but one drive can fail and you can keep running, replace the failed drive and rebuild your array. Not sure if your Intel RAID will support that or not. I prefer to use a dedicated card for RAID or sometimes I'll use Linux software RAID.

My experience and opinions reflect what I'd do though...others may recommend different. You can always try for yourself. You could also consider using one drive for Windows + programs (maybe dual boot Linux as well) and the other drive for games.


----------



## sn2x (Aug 13, 2016)

I see, looks like I'll be doing two separate volumes.  Thanks.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2016)

Only time ill RAID0 ssds if its for games. For the OS ill just do a single ssd or m.2. Nothing inherently wrong about putting ssds in RAID though. Just got to consider what you want to store on it.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 14, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Only time ill RAID0 ssds if its for games. For the OS ill just do a single ssd or m.2. Nothing inherently wrong about putting ssds in RAID though. Just got to consider what you want to store on it.



LOL, some times i will put some games on a HDD due to loading to fast to be able to read whats on the loading screen in time lol, Skyrim is one that's guilty of it.


But no need to raided drives, well not yet.  Then there is the risk of losing every thing is one fails,


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2016)

AsRock said:


> LOL, some times i will put some games on a HDD due to loading to fast to be able to read whats on the loading screen in time lol, Skyrim is one that's guilty of it.
> 
> 
> But no need to raided drives, well not yet.  Then there is the risk of losing every thing is one fails,



With as many mods as I have on Skyrim, using a HDD just takes too damn long to load.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 14, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> With as many mods as I have on Skyrim, using a HDD just takes too damn long to load.



I have around 50 and only takes a moment, although i am on my 3rd time around with the game now so it's on a SSD .  No need to read the tips or what ever.  Thinking about it one worse for it was Dragon Age 3.


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 14, 2016)

Well I have everything pretty much RAID0 in my rig. My OS is on 2 850 EVO's and my Games Array is 2 WD Blacks. As for loss I have a 1TB with my backup stuff. If I lost my OS array I just lost my OS not a big deal. Games are Steam, Origin, Uplay, GOG again nothing that can't be replaced That said my WD Blacks have been going strong well over 5yrs now easy they used to my OS array .


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 14, 2016)

AsRock said:


> I have around 50 and only takes a moment, although i am on my 3rd time around with the game now so it's on a SSD .  No need to read the tips or what ever.  Thinking about it one worse for it was Dragon Age 3.



I have close to 150.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 14, 2016)

LOL, i have no need for that many.


----------



## FYFI13 (Aug 14, 2016)

And then there's another issue: most integrated/cheap RAID controllers do not support TRIM function which is necessary for solid state drives.


----------



## FR@NK (Aug 14, 2016)

FYFI13 said:


> And then there's another issue: most integrated/cheap RAID controllers do not support TRIM function which is necessary for solid state drives.



Trim is supported on the raid controller within the intel chipsets. At first it wasnt but now they have updated drivers that passthrough trim commands.


----------



## hat (Aug 14, 2016)

SSD RAID is next to useless, unless you're either putting your OS on RAID 1 and you're extra worried about your drive dying and don't want to go through reinstalling, or you run a webserver or some other important data that benefits from being on an SSD, and can't be lost.

RAID0 was great with traditional HDDs, because it reduced the bottleneck caused by hard drives. SSDs are really good where hard drives aren't, that is, random reads/writes and access time (think OS drive). They're also better at sequential reads/writes, but they're so good because they stay strong where hard drives would crumble. RAID0 helped hard drives in this area with two hard drives working on the same task instead of just one, thereby improving those pitiful random reads and access times, but SSDs still win over RAID0 HDDs by a large margin here.

In your situation though, RAID0 would simply be more convenient to have one large drive rather than two smaller drives with which to split up your OS, programs and games? over... but it will become a lot less convenient should something bad happen to one of the drives, all your data goes away then.


----------



## FYFI13 (Aug 14, 2016)

FR@NK said:


> Trim is supported on the raid controller within the intel chipsets. At first it wasnt but now they have updated drivers that passthrough trim commands.


For me it didn't work on Asus Z97 M Plus. Latest BIOS, latest drivers.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 14, 2016)

FR@NK said:


> Trim is supported on the raid controller within the intel chipsets. At first it wasnt but now they have updated drivers that passthrough trim commands.


I was doing this on x79 a while back.  I've since moved on to m.2 and don't need raid0.

Although Windows did not necessarily boot as fast as I hoped in Raid0, other programs did load faster.  I was never worried about failure, as I back up my rig every night and stored important files on a separate drive.  If you are firm in a backup schedule and can live with the possibility of failure, it's fun to play with.  It's also great for using a cache for streaming and other things that need fast writes, which are usually edited and off-loaded to other storage later.


----------



## FR@NK (Aug 14, 2016)

FYFI13 said:


> For me it didn't work on Asus Z97 M Plus. Latest BIOS, latest drivers.



How did you confirm it wasnt working? Did you use fsutil behavior query disabledeletenotify?


----------



## FYFI13 (Aug 14, 2016)

FR@NK said:


> How did you confirm it wasnt working? Did you use fsutil behavior query disabledeletenotify?


At first i noticed that performance dropped nearly twice and then i ran "fsutil behavior query disabledeletenotify" command which confirmed TRIM is disabled.


----------



## lorraine walsh (Sep 2, 2016)

I love the speed of a RAID 0 array. The thing is, SSD drives offer better performance for about the same price as two WD Black drives. Of course, the SSD is not going to offer the space as the two WDs. If you have the money, an SSD drive is the way to go.


----------



## Champ (Sep 2, 2016)

I'd only use raid 0 with HDDs. That's the only way it seems worth it to me. I have no load time issues with mine. But I did make one crash like a dummy before and had to reconfigurate. Live and learn.


----------



## Komshija (Sep 6, 2016)

Generally speaking, RAID 0 is a bad thing. If one of your HDD's or SSD's dies, you will loose all data. RAID 1 has more sense, but it's better to get an external HDD and backup your data. It's almost impossible that primary drive and external HDD fail at the same time.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 6, 2016)

Komshija said:


> Generally speaking, RAID 0 is a bad thing. If one of your HDD's or SSD's dies, you will loose all data. RAID 1 has more sense, but it's better to get an external HDD and backup your data. It's almost impossible that primary drive and external HDD fail at the same time.


Meh my 2 1TB WD Blacks would disagree  At least 5yrs going. Were my main drive for years and now my dedicated gaming array. My 1TB Seagate I use for storage is the one drive I have that is "going" I'm gonna grab a 1TB WD Blue to replace it next pay cheque as THAT drive I would worry about losing.


----------



## FYFI13 (Sep 6, 2016)

INSTG8R said:


> Meh my 2 1TB WD Blacks would disagree  At least 5yrs going. Were my main drive for years and now my dedicated gaming array. My 1TB Seagate I use for storage is the one drive I have that is "going" I'm gonna grab a 1TB WD Blue to replace it next pay cheque as THAT drive I would worry about losing.


My WD Velociraptor 1TB would disagree. One of them died while in raid 0, second one still going strong. All i lost was game installs, thanks to Steam and 240Mbit/s broadband everything was restored over the night.

Raid 0 can offer nice performance boosts but it's up to user to make backups of important data stored on those drives. Otherwise it's a ticking bomb.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 6, 2016)

FYFI13 said:


> My WD Velociraptor 1TB would disagree. One of them died while in raid 0, second one still going strong. All i lost was game installs, thanks to Steam and 240Mbit/s broadband everything was restored over the night.
> 
> Raid 0 can offer nice performance boosts but it's up to user to make backups of important data stored on those drives. Otherwise it's a ticking bomb.


Oh I agree I'm just saying from my own experience I have yet to lose an array and I'm pretty slap dash with it. Also regarding yourself and you checking TRIM. I did a quick one on mine just to see(2 500GB EVO's) you sure your reading it right? 0=On


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 6, 2016)

Yikes....

1. RAID IS NOT A BACKUP!!!!!
2. TRIM is supported in RAID and has been for a couple of generations on the Intel side...if it isn't working, there is an issue somewhere: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6161/...ssd-arrays-on-7series-motherboards-we-test-it
3. Do you need the speed and cannot afford an SSD or need the space? Then R0 a couple of HDDs.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Yikes....
> 
> 1. RAID IS NOT A BACKUP!!!!!
> 2. TRIM is supported in RAID and has been for a couple of generations on the Intel side...
> 3. Do you need the speed and cannot afford an SSD or need the space? Then R0 a couple of HDDs.


Nobody said it was?


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 6, 2016)

I thought it was alluded to in a post (#21? "RAID 1 has more sense")... regardless, it is worth it to say outloud a bit more clearly in case anyone has any ideas.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I thought it was alluded to in a post (#21? "RAID 1 has more sense")... regardless, it is worth it to say outloud a bit more clearly in case anyone has any ideas.


 The SPEEEED!!!!  That is my MO anyway


----------



## FYFI13 (Sep 6, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> 2. TRIM is supported in RAID and has been for a couple of generations on the Intel side...if it isn't working, there is an issue somewhere: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6161/...ssd-arrays-on-7series-motherboards-we-test-it


That was interesting read, thanks. Going to check if i have Intel RST enabled once I'm back home.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 6, 2016)

I had two 256 samsung evo's in raid 0 and then went to a 512 samsung pro. the 512 pro seems quicker and more responsive than the raid 0 setup


----------



## Komshija (Sep 7, 2016)

INSTG8R said:


> Meh my 2 1TB WD Blacks would disagree  At least 5yrs going. Were my main drive for years and now my dedicated gaming array. My 1TB Seagate I use for storage is the one drive I have that is "going" I'm gonna grab a 1TB WD Blue to replace it next pay cheque as THAT drive I would worry about losing.


HDD don't fail that often, but it certainly happens, thus RAID 0 for a little performance increase is not worth it. RAID 1 is unnecessary for the average consumers, but for medium or large companies it's actually a very good idea.  It's better to buy a faster HDD or fast SSD and combine it with fast HDD for storage/data and external HDD for back-up.


----------



## Marstg (Sep 18, 2016)

On ssds no on hdds yes with the condition you don't place anything of importance on them.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 19, 2016)

As someone who had an SSD RAID-0, I can say that it's not a bad option if you can get two SSDs for a better price than a single one of equivalent size. So for me, the only time you really notice the bandwidth is when you're copying a lot of data at once but, that's an edge case. I feel that RAID-0 is just as responsive as one drive which is just as responsive as the PCI-E M.2 SSD in my laptop for work. If you look at my specs, you'll see though that the RAID-0 isn't my only RAID, I have a 4 disk RAID-5 with 1TBs which gains me redundancy and mass data storage that *is separate my my operating systems which go on the SSDs*. The benefit is that even if an OS explodes on me or if my RAID-0 gets decimated, everything that matters is on the RAID-5 which is more reliable than the RAID-0. It also enables me to quickly blow away the OS if I need to without worrying about my data but, as everyone loves to point out, redundancy is not backup, which is why I have another RAID-5 in my gateway server which houses copies of the really important things.

With that said, even my RAID-5 gives me decent numbers (300MB/s isn't unrealistic,) so, it's not like everything needs to be on the SSDs either which is probably why I've gotten away with not replacing them with something bigger.



EarthDog said:


> 2. TRIM is supported in RAID and has been for a couple of generations on the Intel side...if it isn't working, there is an issue somewhere: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6161/...ssd-arrays-on-7series-motherboards-we-test-it


I do think that X79 requires RSTe to gain TRIM in RAID mode but, my knowledge could be out of date. The OP hasn't said anything about his machine though, so anything is probably going to be speculation.


----------



## Marstg (Sep 19, 2016)

TRIM in raid works only from raid0 since Z77. Not working in raid5. BTW your raid5 is done on the Southbridge of the x79?


----------



## D007 (Sep 19, 2016)

Now a days.. I'm not so sure, with SSD's and the speed increases.. Not to mention you have 0 redundancy with raid 0.. 
I liked 0+1 with HDD's but again, Idk with SSD's..
I guess if you are transferring huge amounts of data it could be...


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 19, 2016)

Marstg said:


> TRIM in raid works only from raid0 since Z77. Not working in raid5. BTW your raid5 is done on the Southbridge of the x79?


X79 has 2 SATA3 ports and 4 SATA2 ports. The SSDs are on the SATA3 and the 1TB WD Blacks are on the SATA2. There is a Marvell SATA 6GB controller on the P9X79 Deluxe but, it only drives a DVD drive and a 500GB Seagate Constellation ES. Benchmarks suggest that it can't fully saturate a SATA3 SSD and only has two ports. Needless to say, I've maxed the motherboard out on it capabilities short of getting a dedicated RAID card. Just for clarification, on skt2011, the PCH is basically the south bridge since both the memory controller and the main PCI-E root complex has been moved to the CPU (hence the insane number of contacts on skt2011 for all of those DRAM channels and PCI-E lanes,) so...

TL;DR: Yes, both the RAID-0 and RAID-5 are off the X79 PCH.

Side note: Despite my 3820 having 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, the PCH has another 8 lanes of 2.0 which is a lot of I/O for someone who might care about something other than gaming.

Edit: For yucks, this is what Linux is claiming for latencies and read speeds. The SSD run was from about a month ago and I just ran the RAID-5 one now. I have zero complaints about my machine. In fact I have zero plans for upgrades at the moment (even if I did have the money.)


----------



## FR@NK (Sep 19, 2016)

D007 said:


> Not to mention you have 0 redundancy with raid 0..



Yea but you also have zero redundancy with a single drive. So since the OP only has two drives, only raid 1 will minimize data loss.



Marstg said:


> BTW your raid5 is done on the Southbridge of the x79?



There is no southbridge on the x79.


----------



## slozomby (Sep 19, 2016)

Komshija said:


> HDD don't fail that often, but it certainly happens, thus RAID 0 for a little performance increase is not worth it. RAID 1 is unnecessary for the average consumers, but for medium or large companies it's actually a very good idea.  It's better to buy a faster HDD or fast SSD and combine it with fast HDD for storage/data and external HDD for back-up.



Medium to large companies store their data on a proper san, which while they have "raid" settings it doesn't equate to the raid settings on local storage based raid controllers. most of those san controllers have multiple levels of raid before the user space configuration portion. add it tiered/cached storage and comparing it to local raid is pointless.

even the places I've worked that have local only storage. raid 1 for the os drive has been being phased out in favor of a single ssd.  with data stored on a raid 5 or 6

rebuilding VMware on a box takes a few minutes once you have the drive in place. and since VMware doesn't really tax a local drive with writes they will outlast the servers usefulness in most cases.

a truly large enterprise is either not going to have local storage at all ( VMware runs nicely from the san). or in cases like google they've given up on raid and just have 40 machines with the same data in a cluster and rebuild a machine if it dies.

for workstations there are very few that will have any form of raid at a large company. workstations are a disposable asset except for a few "professional workstations" that wind up in the programmer/design folks hands. everyone one of those I've touched in the last few years has been raid 5 for data and a single ssd for os and religiously backed up.

the only time i'd raid an ssd is for space purposes. raid 1 makes no sense to me for them. sure you have the ability to keep running in case of a rare drive failure. but if the file system tanks you're still screwed. i'd rather clone the drive every now and again and have a spare.

if you're going to spend money on raiding ssd's you should also invest in a proper raid controller. this gives you write caching which helps drive life. and if something should die the raid controller rebuilds it without the massive hit you get from most embedded sata controllers.   a proper raid controller also can do fun stuff like use a ssd for caching data from a large spinning disk stripe. so the games you play often get moved to the ssd automatically. switch games and the data will switch.




FR@NK said:


> Yea but you also have zero redundancy with a single drive. So since the OP only has two drives, only raid 1 will minimize data loss.



a nightly backup will also minimize data loss.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 19, 2016)

slozomby said:


> a truly large enterprise is either not going to have local storage at all ( VMware runs nicely from the san). or in cases like google they've given up on raid and just have 40 machines with the same data in a cluster and rebuild a machine if it dies.


Or they're going to pay to get a service like Google GCE or Amazon AWS to scale to their needs simply by using a friendly interface or via REST APIs. At work we use Google and if one of the cloud servers gets funky (even the database,) we can destroy it, re-create it, and point san storage towards everything that matters.

In defense, there are some things that are on premises that matter a little more like a phone (PBX) server, gateway, firewall, VPN, etc. but, that really depends on the business, how small or big it is and it's demands on networking infrastructure. So for the PBX, if you don't have a RAID that has redundancy then if a drive fails, you lose everyone's voicemail. Now wouldn't that suck? Either way, there is a time and a place for RAID.


----------



## slozomby (Sep 19, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Or they're going to pay to get a service like Google GCE or Amazon AWS to scale to their needs simply by using a friendly interface or via REST APIs. At work we use Google and if one of the cloud servers gets funky (even the database,) we can destroy it, re-create it, and point san storage towards everything that matters.
> 
> In defense, there are some things that are on premises that matter a little more like a phone (PBX) server, gateway, firewall, VPN, etc. but, that really depends on the business, how small or big it is and it's demands on networking infrastructure. So for the PBX, if you don't have a RAID that has redundancy then if a drive fails, you lose everyone's voicemail. Now wouldn't that suck? Either way, there is a time and a place for RAID.



thanks. I neglected to cover clouds.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2018)

hi people, I have a question about RAID 0, should I do this for my 2xToshiba 2TB drives or it's not worth it? I'll use this for some of my games that are not on the SSD also for a few movies and music 

Please advise 

Thanks


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 14, 2018)

You're better off getting another 2TB and running RAID-5, at least that way you gain redundancy while still having RAID-0 like read speeds (RAID-5's down side is write speeds because of parity.) You can run RAID-0 but, you probably won't notice a difference. A lot of the benefit that comes from SSDs is low access latency, something that adding more drives doesn't typically get you.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Feb 14, 2018)

im using RAID 0 on my home PC, 
but its hooked up to an LSI 8i controller, and its a 600GB 15k SAS drives, 
the only upside is the read/write speed which scrapes a single SATA3 SSD.
load times are also quite fast with this setup

but i dont suggest building RAID 0  for any important data, one power outage, bye all the data.
i'm rather confident with my setup because its an enterprise SAS drive, which should last a bit longer than normal consumer drive


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2018)

I am not looking at this as a long term option...I will do this only for a limited period of time until I buy a 1TB SSD for my games


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2018)

I wouldnt bother if its for a short period of time...


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2018)

I am bored and this is a thing I've never done before


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2018)

So why are you asking us? Do what you want to do man.


----------



## Sandbo (Feb 14, 2018)

I run RAID 0 with 2*500GB (5 years old) WD enterprise drives, only because they are for holding files which are real-time synchronized to dropbox.
Imho, RAID 0 can be used if the files on it are frequently backed up to a safe storage. For example, it is not a bad idea to set a 3*NVMe 960pro as your boot drive, with making sure you do daily backup.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 14, 2018)

AhokZYashA said:


> but i dont suggest building RAID 0 for any important data, one power outage, bye all the data.


That's inaccurate. A power outage won't cause any more data loss than in any other RAID configuration (or non RAID for that matter.) The kicker with RAID-0 is that if a drive fails, everything is gone with it since data is spread out among several disks. RAID-5 and 6 work the same way but, an extra block (or two for RAID-6,) are stored so it's possible to recover from drive failures.

With that said, I've lost power and have had my machine crash with my SSDs in RAID-0 for years and it has yet to fail. I still put important things on the RAID-5 but, all in all, RAID-0 is only as good as the drives in the array. If the drives stay alive, so will the RAID.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 14, 2018)

Raid in any array form or configuration is only as good as the drives it comprised of 
more drives unless mirrored are more potential failure points this is why Enterprise seldom uses Raid0


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 14, 2018)

dorsetknob said:


> Raid in any array form or configuration is only as good as the drives it comprised of
> more drives unless mirrored are more potential failure points this is why Enterprise seldom uses Raid0


Businesses care more about the R in RAID, being the redundancy bit. You don't want to lose money from things like sales just because a drive failed. It's a lot more about uptime than anything else. You can do the same thing without RAID by having backups but, being able to run a RAID degraded and while it rebuilds has a huge impact on uptime due to hardware failure.


----------



## Athlonite (Feb 15, 2018)

INSTG8R said:


> Oh I agree I'm just saying from my own experience I have yet to lose an array and I'm pretty slap dash with it. Also regarding yourself and you checking TRIM. I did a quick one on mine just to see(2 500GB EVO's) you sure your reading it right? 0=On



Same here for me the last time I lost a HDD in RAID0 was way back when the WD800 (80GB) HDD's were new haven't lost one since


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 15, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> You can do the same thing without RAID by having backups



not to be confused with RAID actually being a backup (which it isnt), just clarification for those that might read it as an either or.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Only if you dont care about losing anything on both drives when one dies then having to rebuild the array. Sure why not, other thsn that. A BIG NO


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 15, 2018)

There are RAID modes with redundancy...

..again, it isn't a back up, we get it. But there are forms of redundant RAID where losing a drive, or few, will not cause data loss.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 15, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> So why are you asking us? Do what you want to do man.


I just wanted some opinions from people that have actually done this before, you don't have to get upset with me, sorry for wasting so much of you precious time


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 15, 2018)

Im not upset in the least. In fact, i put that smiley there for a reason...

Its just funny you ask, then poopoo the replies. So since you clearly have it mind...make it happen!!


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 15, 2018)

I will and I've got the motivation to do this now after seeing what others had to say, I don't really care that much for the data that's gonna be on this array, like I said this will be a temporary thing until I get a 1TB SSD and get rid of the HDD's all together


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 15, 2018)

Have fun. Post the experience/results (in a thread of your own) when you have them!


----------



## Jetster (Feb 15, 2018)

Why you need raid 0 with an SSD is beyond me.   Nothing wrong with raid 0, it has its place


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 15, 2018)

Jetster said:


> Why you need raid 0 with an SSD is beyond me.   Nothing wrong with raid 0, it has its place


I am not sure if this question is for me but I won't make a RAID with ssd's


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 15, 2018)

I'm not currently on RAID 0 because I only have 1 M2 slot...
I will RAID 0 every single time I can...
No such thing as fast enough storage yet...
I don't care about failures that's what backups and the cloud is for.


----------



## John Naylor (Feb 15, 2018)

Addressed this topic in another thread ... while there are specific applications where RAID0 can actually deliver something, you typical desktop is not one of them.  RAID 0 gives great benchmarks, but for everyday usage, there's si[ly nothing to be gained.... and that's been true for over 15 years ... I keep we look at it every 3 years and haven't found a real word benefit yet ...  

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/upgrade-ssd-or-raid.241255/#post-3794827


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 16, 2018)

Jetster said:


> Why you need raid 0 with an SSD is beyond me.   Nothing wrong with raid 0, it has its place



Indeed! I run RAID 0 on a pair of HGST 2TB 7200RPM drives and a 64GB SSD as a cache disk for that array! its just steam origin and gog so if it all dies iv lost nothing but like 10 hours for it all too redownload but since I dont have the $$ and large 1TB+ SSDs havent been tested enough (consumer grade) this is a perfect balance between full SSD arrays or individual large SSD drives and spinning rust.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 16, 2018)

sn2x said:


> I got a good deal on two 850 EVOs(500 GBx2, ended up around $240 combined) and was going to put them in RAID 0 and put Windows 10 on it, but after searching online a lot of people seem to think that doing this would be a bad idea... If I did it I would be using the Intel RAID that is supported by my motherboard...


Seems a lot of people have insight and ideas on this. From a professional point of view, using Intel's chipset based RAID0 is ok if you want one big volume and the faster short-shot access times. Otherwise, get a hardware RAID card if you want the most from those drives. If you had a set of 3 or 4, I'd say do RAID5. It will give you near-instant access times and data redundancy/security. However, despite rumors, setting up SSD's in a RAID array will not cause any undue sector-wear.


Marstg said:


> TRIM in raid works only from raid0 since Z77. Not working in raid5.


This is not correct. TRIM has been supported in all RAID schemes since 2011.


Liviu Cojocaru said:


> hi people, I have a question about RAID 0, should I do this for my 2xToshiba 2TB drives or it's not worth it? I'll use this for some of my games that are not on the SSD also for a few movies and music Please advise  Thanks


You can, but the benefit in that scenario would be minimal. It's different if you want to boot from them. But remember to have a extra drives not a part if the array as backups.


dorsetknob said:


> Raid in any array form or configuration is only as good as the drives it comprised of
> more drives unless mirrored are more potential failure points this is why Enterprise seldom uses Raid0


Yes, this. RAID0 is really only useful in a non-data-critical application where speed is needed and data redundancy is not critical. Datacenters generally use multiplexed RAID 60.


Solaris17 said:


> not to be confused with RAID actually being a backup (which it isnt), just clarification for those that might read it as an either or.


If using a secure, IE data redundant, RAID scheme then yes RAID can be used for data backups. RAID5 can work, but RAID6, 10, 50 and 60 are best.


----------



## hat (Feb 16, 2018)

The only time I think RAID0 is useful is when you have hard drives. For SSD, it's unnescessary. Modern SSDs especially are already so fast, you're not gonna notice much of a difference. There's not even much difference moving from a regular SSD to the crazy fast NVMe SSD as a boot drive. RAID 0 with HDD will make games load faster, maybe... no reason to have an OS on HDD anymore.


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 16, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> If using a secure, IE data redundant, RAID scheme then yes RAID can be used for data backups. RAID5 can work, but RAID6, 10, 50 and 60 are best.


I think his point is that RAID by itself isn't a backup and he's right. Redundancy isn't a backup. Things can happen that can kill an array. In fact there was 1 time where I almost had a second drive in my RAID-5 fail while I was already awaiting a replacement in the mail. As unlikely as it is, more than one device can fail and having RAID won't save you if your house burns down.


hat said:


> The only time I think RAID0 is useful is when you have hard drives. For SSD, it's unnescessary. Modern SSDs especially are already so fast, you're not gonna notice much of a difference. There's not even much difference moving from a regular SSD to the crazy fast NVMe SSD as a boot drive. RAID 0 with HDD will make games load faster, maybe... no reason to have an OS on HDD anymore.


For me, it was never about speed. 6 years ago, it was cheaper to get two 120GBs than a single 240GB. However, the 1GB/s isn't too shabby.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 16, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> I think his point is that RAID by itself isn't a backup and he's right. Redundancy isn't a backup. Things can happen that can kill an array.


True, thus the explanation in more detail.


Aquinus said:


> As unlikely as it is, more than one device can fail and having RAID won't save you if your house burns down.


That is an excellent point! It's also the reason why I tell all of my clients who use RAID to have at least two spare drives sitting in spare just in case. Most do so. It's been a good rule-of-thumb since the SCSI RAID days.


----------

