So...who's running their SSDs in RAID 0?

[Zweihander]

So...who's running their SSDs in RAID 0?

 

Thinking about doing this later down the road... thoughts, comments, criticism?

[Vitalius]

So...who's running their SSDs in RAID 0?

 

Thinking about doing this later down the road... thoughts, comments, criticism?

SSDs have such a long lifespan that I honestly don't believe it's dangerous to do this (keep regular backups just in case, but still). 

I am running 4 SSDs in RAID 0. I did this simply because I wanted them to be one volume, and Windows is stupid about how it wants to handle that without using RAID 0. 

Realize that as you put more SSDs in RAID 0, less data is written to each, thus expanding their life even further. 

It's completely unnecessary for speed since no application can use all that bandwidth, and most motherboards will limit the speed anyway (unless you use a dedicated RAID card, but that's a bad idea for different reasons).

[Zweihander]

Realize that as you put more SSDs in RAID 0, less data is written to each, thus expanding their life even further. 

 

I just got an MX100 512GB SSD, and plan on getting a second at some point utilizing RAID 0.

[rmac52]

I've been running 3 60 GB OCZ drives in raid 0 for 2 years now.  They still work great.  I do notice a speed difference between my set up and a single ssd system.  That being said I would probably recommend getting the single largest drive you need. Some times when re installing windows I have issues but they are usually simple and easily fixed.

[MiniMoose1211]

I just got an MX100 512GB SSD, and plan on getting a second at some point utilizing RAID 0.

Not matter where you look you see people mentioning it's an extra 100% of failure...... Not an extra 100% Frequency........ Instead of "betting" your data on one drive failing in 15 years, you have to rely on 2... I'm running 2x 850 Evo 250GB in raid 0 as a boot drive..... 1GB/s read and write  The only downside is configuring them imo. It can be hard if you don't do your research about installing windows on a raid drive.

[Vitalius]

I just got an MX100 512GB SSD, and plan on getting a second at some point utilizing RAID 0.

I edited my post. Check the last line about speeds being irrelevant. 

That is true beyond 2 SSDs in RAID 0 either for applications or the motherboard, I think. It's possible to benefit from 2 SSDs in RAID 0 just for something like Photoshop or another high bandwidth using application (e.g. Adobe Premiere).

[DevilishBooster]

I'm currently running 2 Crucial m550 SSDs in RAID 0 just so that I can have them set as one volume. This is the first time that I've ever used SSDs and I absolutely love it. The speed over an HDD is amazing. Just make sure that any data you are worried about losing is backed up daily on a HDD.

[Zweihander]

I'm currently running 2 Crucial m550 SSDs in RAID 0 just so that I can have them set as one volume. This is the first time that I've ever used SSDs and I absolutely love it. The speed over an HDD is amazing. Just make sure that any data you are worried about losing is backed up daily on a HDD.

 

The main purpose would be a singular volume. Sensitive data is kept on an external device. 

[DevilishBooster]

The main purpose would be a singular volume. Sensitive data is kept on an external device. 

I have my RAID 0 array simply for programs like Adobe and Steam games. I store everything else on a separate HDD. If you're just looking for a larger volume SSD volume, then there's nothing wrong with RAID 0.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I run 2x 128GB OCZ Vertex4 in raid 0 because when I bought them 2 small ones were cheaper than the 256GB version. 

 

Gotta love that speed, even if you only rarely get to use it all.

The real-life performance gain compared to a single SSD isn't really noticeable. You really can't tell the difference between loading times.

So would I do it again? Well, I'm about to upgrade to a pair of 256GB Samsung 850 PROs, which will also be in RAID 0. Same argument, the 256GB ones were 159.9 EUR, the 512 GB one was 319.9 EUR, so 10 cents more expensive.

I save money, get more speed and the SSDs will last longer. It'd be kinda dumb to go for the single one then ... unless you don't have enough SATA 6Gbps ports on your motherboard, of course.

(apologies for the Dutch in the links, by the way. My local HW store doesn't support multiple languages).

[MrBucket101]

It's completely unnecessary for speed since no application can use all that bandwidth, and most motherboards will limit the speed anyway (unless you use a dedicated RAID card, but that's a bad idea for different reasons).

Why is a dedicated RAID card a bad idea?

[legendnb]

running 2 samsung pro 128gb in raid 0, 

speed is insane, bootup is <20sec w/ w7,

can be faster with w8 and boot logo/memcheck screen disabled.

no lags, no drawback. 

running the rig for at lest 100hr/wk for the last 4month.

[Vitalius]

Why is a dedicated RAID card a bad idea?

It's extra cost and creates further unnecessary complexity for a RAID. 

If your card dies, you need an identical card to recover your RAID if you don't have a backup. The same is true of your motherboard, but if your whole system dies, then you need both a new motherboard & RAID card. 

It's just generally unnecessary unless you are doing special work (which requires a RAID card that has a battery to protect against power failure during writes) so as not to lose it. 

[legendnb]

It's extra cost and creates further unnecessary complexity for a RAID. 

If your card dies, you need an identical card to recover your RAID if you don't have a backup. The same is true of your motherboard, but if your whole system dies, then you need both a new motherboard & RAID card. 

It's just generally unnecessary unless you are doing special work (which requires a RAID card that has a battery to protect against power failure during writes) so as not to lose it. 

i dont think the death of a raid card will be the death of the mobo, usually reflashing can help isnt it?

anyway as someone mentioned, raid 0 is for windows file and games mostly, document is better off on another harddisc.

once a sdd/hdd in raid 0 dies, all the data dies with it.

[Vitalius]

i dont think the death of a raid card will be the death of the mobo, usually reflashing can help isnt it?

anyway as someone mentioned, raid 0 is for windows file and games mostly, document is better off on another harddisc.

once a sdd/hdd in raid 0 dies, all the data dies with it.

That's not what I said. 

Meh. 

Yes, but it is extremely unlikely for an SSD to die any time soon. They live quite a long time if they weren't damaged in manufacturing. Splitting up the data just means they'll live even longer.

[MrBucket101]

It's extra cost and creates further unnecessary complexity for a RAID. 

If your card dies, you need an identical card to recover your RAID if you don't have a backup. The same is true of your motherboard, but if your whole system dies, then you need both a new motherboard & RAID card. 

It's just generally unnecessary unless you are doing special work (which requires a RAID card that has a battery to protect against power failure during writes) so as not to lose it. 

• Extra cost for extra performance.
• The fakeRAID on most mobos is pretty bad. Plus you're married to the mobo if you use it.
• You don't need an identical card, just one with the same family of raid chip.  The RAID configuration is stored on the disks. Most times the same brand of controller is all thats needed.
• If your mobo dies, just get a new one, and put the raid card back in.
• You also only need a battery or UPS if you enable write-back caching, which is disabled by default.  In write-through mode you have no issues, as the card writes direct to disk, instead of its cache.
• Hardly more headache, most raid controllers don't need drivers to operate, and can be configured from the Pre-Bios boot menu. 

[Vitalius]

• Extra cost for extra performance.
• The fakeRAID on most mobos is pretty bad. Plus you're married to the mobo if you use it.
• You don't need an identical card, just one with the same family of raid chip.  The RAID configuration is stored on the disks. Most times the same brand of controller is all thats needed.
• If your mobo dies, just get a new one, and put the raid card back in.
• You also only need a battery or UPS if you enable write-back caching, which is disabled by default.  In write-through mode you have no issues, as the card writes direct to disk, instead of its cache.
• Hardly more headache, most raid controllers don't need drivers to operate, and can be configured from the Pre-Bios boot menu. 

• Extra performance you will likely never need as a consumer.
• It works and that's all it needs to do for 90% (or at least a very large portion) of consumers.
• You are married to that family of RAID chip then. It's not really different.
• I'm not sure what your point is here.
• ? I doubt a normal motherboard supports write-back caching.

I don't understand why you said half of what you said. 

I don't see the purpose in getting a RAID card specifically to RAID 0 together some SSDs. It's just extra expense and complexity for little benefit unless you are using it for something special that needs it (higher bandwidth, sensitive work that needs the write-through or back options, etc.)

[Ostekages]

I had two 840 EVO in RAID0. However for some reason, one of them constantly makes some error in the RAID setup and my Windows gets bugged and i need to reinstall.
Eventually i just dropped it and ran them regularly. There's nothing wrong with it and it only has about 4TB written to it, so it must be my motherboard i presume

[MrBucket101]

 

• Extra performance you will likely never need as a consumer.
• It works and that's all it needs to do for 90% (or at least a very large portion) of consumers.
• You are married to that family of RAID chip then. It's not really different.
• I'm not sure what your point is here.
• ? I doubt a normal motherboard supports write-back caching.

I don't understand why you said half of what you said. 

I don't see the purpose in getting a RAID card specifically to RAID 0 together some SSDs. It's just extra expense and complexity for little benefit unless you are using it for something special that needs it (higher bandwidth, sensitive work that needs the write-through or back options, etc.)

 

 

Because a dedicated RAID card isn't a bad idea.

 

fakeRAID has its place, but it's very limited. A dedicated card is not as big of a hassle as you make it out to be and provides far more benefits than fakeRAID. 

Dedicated cards are also not that expensive. I picked up an HP P410 off ebay for $30 just last month. Its a basic End-Of-Life 6Gbps card with SSD suuport and RAID 0/1/5/6/10. 

 

I still think being married to a motherboard a horrible idea. If the mobo dies, or you decide to upgrade you're kinda screwed. Buying the same mobo a year or 2 down the road is almost impossible.

 

It all comes down to being informed. It's convenience versus performance

 

 

 

I had two 840 EVO in RAID0. However for some reason, one of them constantly makes some error in the RAID setup and my Windows gets bugged and i need to reinstall.

Eventually i just dropped it and ran them regularly. There's nothing wrong with it and it only has about 4TB written to it, so it must be my motherboard i presume

 

I believe this was a problem with some of the early firmware for the 840 evo. Would cause the drive to drop out of arrays. Have you tried updating the drive to the latest firmware?

[Vitalius]

Because a dedicated RAID card isn't a bad idea.

 

fakeRAID has its place, but it's very limited. A dedicated card is not as big of a hassle as you make it out to be and provides far more benefits than fakeRAID. 

Dedicated cards are also not that expensive. I picked up an HP P410 off ebay for $30 just last month. Its a basic End-Of-Life 6Gbps card with SSD suuport and RAID 0/1/5/6/10. 

 

I still think being married to a motherboard a horrible idea. If the mobo dies, or you decide to upgrade you're kinda screwed. Buying the same mobo a year or 2 down the road is almost impossible.

 

It all comes down to being informed. It's convenience versus performance

I disagree for most users. 

How is it very limited? What features does it lack that a dedicated RAID card has that a normal user needs? All I can think of are higher bandwidth, a battery backup for writes (if you use that feature), and the ability to pull the RAID card out with the drives and move to a new machine and have the data be fine. Respectively, users don't need/wouldn't notice it, don't need/wouldn't notice it, and the usefulness of that is limited as it wouldn't be needed very often, and is unlikely to be used anyway, so I wouldn't say it's worth the extra cost compared to buying an older used identical motherboard off of Ebay to do the same thing.

$30 would make a large difference in the quality of a motherboard at the average consumer level in my opinion. 

Being married to either one is a bad idea. Each has their own pros & cons, but I feel that the cons are greater than the pros of a dedicated RAID card for most people. 

A new one? Yes. A used one just to get your array off those drives?  I would say no. Which I view this as no different than the RAID card situation except you might buy a brand new one with the intention of continuing to use it after a few years. Plus, after a few years, you can buy an equivalent drive at a much cheaper price (say, going from two 120GB SSDs to a single 240GB SSD) meaning transitioning from a RAID setup in the future would be less of a financial burden. Meaning if you want to upgrade your motherboard, you first upgrade your SSDs (buy the 240GB, clone the RAID 0 to it, sell the two 120GB SSDs to cover the costs of consolidation). 

You keep mentioning performance. Most people don't need it and even if they have it, won't notice it. Onboard RAID (fakeRAID as you call it) does have lower limitations, but nothing a normal person would be concerned about (maybe a professional and even less so, an enthusiast, but not a normal user). I have four SSDs in RAID 0. My Read/Writes are maxed at ~1GB/s, but I doubt I'd notice the difference if I got a RAID card that could handle the drives' maximum of 2GB/s (since 4 of them with 500 MB/s each results in 2GB/s). Plus I'd never have a use for 2GB/s. There's nothing else I'd have that would need that much bandwidth (maybe a RAMDisk, but even then, there's a limit to how useful 2GB/s is over 1GB/s, so much so that I'd say it's not worth it).

[Padunkadunk]

I run two SSDs in RAID 0 just fine. No thoughts, comments or criticism.

[legendnb]

I disagree for most users. 

How is it very limited? What features does it lack that a dedicated RAID card has that a normal user needs? All I can think of are higher bandwidth, a battery backup for writes (if you use that feature), and the ability to pull the RAID card out with the drives and move to a new machine and have the data be fine. Respectively, users don't need/wouldn't notice it, don't need/wouldn't notice it, and the usefulness of that is limited as it wouldn't be needed very often, and is unlikely to be used anyway, so I wouldn't say it's worth the extra cost compared to buying an older used identical motherboard off of Ebay to do the same thing.

$30 would make a large difference in the quality of a motherboard at the average consumer level in my opinion. 

Being married to either one is a bad idea. Each has their own pros & cons, but I feel that the cons are greater than the pros of a dedicated RAID card for most people. 

A new one? Yes. A used one just to get your array off those drives?  I would say no. Which I view this as no different than the RAID card situation except you might buy a brand new one with the intention of continuing to use it after a few years. Plus, after a few years, you can buy an equivalent drive at a much cheaper price (say, going from two 120GB SSDs to a single 240GB SSD) meaning transitioning from a RAID setup in the future would be less of a financial burden. Meaning if you want to upgrade your motherboard, you first upgrade your SSDs (buy the 240GB, clone the RAID 0 to it, sell the two 120GB SSDs to cover the costs of consolidation). 

You keep mentioning performance. Most people don't need it and even if they have it, won't notice it. Onboard RAID (fakeRAID as you call it) does have lower limitations, but nothing a normal person would be concerned about (maybe a professional and even less so, an enthusiast, but not a normal user). I have four SSDs in RAID 0. My Read/Writes are maxed at ~1GB/s, but I doubt I'd notice the difference if I got a RAID card that could handle the drives' maximum of 2GB/s (since 4 of them with 500 MB/s each results in 2GB/s). Plus I'd never have a use for 2GB/s. There's nothing else I'd have that would need that much bandwidth (maybe a RAMDisk, but even then, there's a limit to how useful 2GB/s is over 1GB/s, so much so that I'd say it's not worth it).

yeah. imo raid card isnt that worth it, too much hassle for me, but if i really need something with that kind of perf, i would just buy a enclosure with support for raid5/10. its all about the redundancy. and some enclosure comes with the option of having UPS, so incase of emergency your data will be there. and in raid 5/10 there is always a duplicate. but then again.. money money money.

 

and raid card are ugly as hell, down for aesthetics.

[m_tieu]

I have 2 Intel 730 series ssd's in raid 0 because the max capacity that they come in is only 480gb and I wanted around 1tb. I put them in raid 0 because I wanted Windows to recognize it as a single volume. I did it because they were on sale and were cheaper than 1tb single ssd's from Samsung or crucial. Boot times are slower because it has to load up the fake raid from mobo first then proceed to loading Windows. Speed gains were there but only noticeable when transferring uncompressible media files from volume to volume.

[MiniMoose1211]

My 2x 850 Evos....... Here is the dismark thingy someone pmed me for.

[legendnb]

My 2x 850 Evos....... Here is the dismark thingy someone pmed me for.

WOAH NICE SPEED.

mine is not bad too