1x NVME vs 3x SATA in RAID 0

[Unixsystem]

So I've looked up a couple other threads on this topic, but they pretty much all talk about performance which is not my concern. 

 

I already have a 512GB 960 Pro as my primary boot drive and use a NAS with a 10gb NIC as a network drive for the majority of my other content. However that setup is become an increasing headache so I'm looking to add more local storage for games and software. 

 

I'm mainly look at Inland SSDs (Microcenter house brand) because they are dirt cheap and have reasonably performant TLC. The problem is that I'm choosing between a 2TB NVME (for $220) or potentially three 1TB SATA drives (for $80 each). I know the general concensus that I've seen online is that RAID 0 SSDs aren't worth the hassle and generally the single newer, faster drive is the better choice. The problem is that I'm not overly concerned about speed (for games the difference between any SSD is going to be pretty minor overall) but rather capacity; I can essentially get a full extra TB for $20. 

 

Realistically any important data will be backed up one my NAS so reliability isn't really a concern (and honestly even RAID 0 SSDs are probably safer than redundant HDDs), plus with SATA drives I'd get to save PCIE lanes which are in high demand (with a second NVME drive I'd need to sacrifice my 10gb NIC; not the end of the world if I already have faster local storage but still not ideal). 

 

My main question is if there are any unforseen consequences to going witb RAID SSDs. I know that early on there were issues with TRIM support and other maintenance features, but I'm not actually sure if those were ever resolved. Also, I'm not sure if it makes more sense to go with potentially faster hardware RAID and lock the array to this motherboard, or stick with software since I'm already going to have a separate dedicated boot drive. Or, is this whole endeavor a waste and am I just better off sacrificing the NIC and the TB of storage for a much cleaner, simpler and theoretically faster NVME drive? 

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

The problem is that I'm not overly concerned about speed (for games the difference between any SSD is going to be pretty minor overall) but rather capacity; I can essentially get a full extra TB for $20. 

but then why raid? Personally I'd just have 3 volumes.

[Vishera]

18 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

but then why raid? Personally I'd just have 3 volumes.

From the title i assume because of the speed...

One NVME drive is still faster than 3 SATA SSDs,

When it come to SSDs,one big drive is better for longevity due to how SSDs function,

The larger the drive and the more free space you have - the better it is for the longevity of the SSD.

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

From the title i assume because of the speed...

One NVME drive is still faster than 3 SATA SSDs,

When it come to SSDs,one big drive is better for longevity due to how SSDs function,

The larger the drive and the more free space you have - the better it is for the longevity of the SSD.

 

2 hours ago, Fasauceome said:

but then why raid? Personally I'd just have 3 volumes.

Speed is irrelevant to me - it's already SSD based, any benefit from RAID is going to be indistinguishable outside of sythetics. The reason is just to get one big volume. I hate managing space and having to move games/files from one drive to another is just a ballache that I don't want to de with, which is the entire reason for the capacity upgrade in the first place. 

 

As far as I'm aware the only real downside to RAID0 is the increased likelihood of a failure ruining the entire volume, but I trust that even with three drives the chance is still lower than with a single hard drive (or probably even multiple hard drives in RAID5/6), so the combined capacity is worth it for me. The potental added speed is nice, but id that sort of theoretical speed mattered to me then the NVME drive would still be faster.

 

I'm just looking for potential downsides that I'm overlooking, and any info/experience with what the best way to set up the array might be. 

[Vishera]

5 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

but I trust that even with three drives the chance is still lower than with a single hard drive

But we were talking about 1x NVME vs 3x SATA in RAID 0,not hard drives,hard drives have nothing to do with this.

[Unixsystem]

Just now, Vishera said:

But we were talking about 1x NVME vs 3x SATA in RAID 0,not hard drives,hard drives have nothing to do with this.

I'm saying that I and everyone else ran hard drives for decades and lived with the inherent possibility of failure. So, even though RAID0 does mean significantly increased chances of the whole array getting boned by a single failure, because SSDs are so much more reliable by default the 3x RAID0 is still going to be plenty reliable for everyday use. Even more so since I have a NAS for backup. 

 

My concern is any other potential SSD specific RAID problems that I'm not aware of, e.g. TRIM support.