SSD's for reliable Raid 0

[Militarysniper2]

Hello everyone this is my first time posting on this forum so i hope it goes well. I am doing an overhaul to my system and one of the new things i got was the Corsair 750D, I love their SSD mounting and i have a 250g Samsung 850 Evo for my boot. However i would like to move to an ALL Ssd rig so that in the near future i can set up liquid cooling b/c I will not have any HDD cages. But then that got me thinking, What are the best, reliable SSD's for Raid 0? Or does it really not matter? I remember Linus once saying that the Intel 730 would be very good for Raid 0, they are extremely reliable even though they are not the "fastest" they do preform the most consistently. Any thoughts for my new setup are all welcome, would love to know what you guys and gals think!

If it matters im running on the Z87 chip and i have 6 Intel Sata connections on my board so that isn't a problem.

[Briggsy]

some ssd's work well in RAID while others pretty much have to be in AHCI mode to run full speed. I know for a fact that the Crucial MX/BX series slow down in RAID, but then again in RAID you would probably still saturate the Sata bus. Can't go wrong with Intel imo. I have a couple samsung EVO's in different machines, but I feel they would be sketchy in Raid.

 

definitely something worthy of researching.

[Skora]

Hello everyone this is my first time posting on this forum so i hope it goes well. I am doing an overhaul to my system and one of the new things i got was the Corsair 750D, I love their SSD mounting and i have a 250g Samsung 850 Evo for my boot. However i would like to move to an ALL Ssd rig so that in the near future i can set up liquid cooling b/c I will not have any HDD cages. But then that got me thinking, What are the best, reliable SSD's for Raid 0? Or does it really not matter? I remember Linus once saying that the Intel 730 would be very good for Raid 0, they are extremely reliable even though they are not the "fastest" they do preform the most consistently. Any thoughts for my new setup are all welcome, would love to know what you guys and gals think!

If it matters im running on the Z87 chip and i have 6 Intel Sata connections on my board so that isn't a problem.

Any SSD should work fine in RAID 0, but if you want the best quality IMO go with a Samsung.

 

I'm not sure why Linus said that, honestly probably because it wasn't "fast enough".

 

What capacity SSD's are you going to be using?

[Skora]

Hello everyone this is my first time posting on this forum so i hope it goes well. I am doing an overhaul to my system and one of the new things i got was the Corsair 750D, I love their SSD mounting and i have a 250g Samsung 850 Evo for my boot. However i would like to move to an ALL Ssd rig so that in the near future i can set up liquid cooling b/c I will not have any HDD cages. But then that got me thinking, What are the best, reliable SSD's for Raid 0? Or does it really not matter? I remember Linus once saying that the Intel 730 would be very good for Raid 0, they are extremely reliable even though they are not the "fastest" they do preform the most consistently. Any thoughts for my new setup are all welcome, would love to know what you guys and gals think!

If it matters im running on the Z87 chip and i have 6 Intel Sata connections on my board so that isn't a problem.

Also i don't think the quality matters unless you're running the SSD's under unnecessary stress.

[STRMfrmXMN]

Hello everyone this is my first time posting on this forum so i hope it goes well. I am doing an overhaul to my system and one of the new things i got was the Corsair 750D, I love their SSD mounting and i have a 250g Samsung 850 Evo for my boot. However i would like to move to an ALL Ssd rig so that in the near future i can set up liquid cooling b/c I will not have any HDD cages. But then that got me thinking, What are the best, reliable SSD's for Raid 0? Or does it really not matter? I remember Linus once saying that the Intel 730 would be very good for Raid 0, they are extremely reliable even though they are not the "fastest" they do preform the most consistently. Any thoughts for my new setup are all welcome, would love to know what you guys and gals think!

If it matters im running on the Z87 chip and i have 6 Intel Sata connections on my board so that isn't a problem.

I was going to say Intel but then @Briggsy beat me to it so there you go. If you were wondering, Intel drives kill themselves when they're at a point where they shouldn't be holding your data. This is a good thing. It makes everything read only so that you can access stuff on it and save it somewhere else before it just dies suddenly.

[Militarysniper2]

Any SSD should work fine in RAID 0, but if you want the best quality IMO go with a Samsung.

 

I'm not sure why Linus said that, honestly probably because it wasn't "fast enough".

 

What capacity SSD's are you going to be using?

I was thinking of using 250's and put them in Raid 0. like i said i already have a 250g 850 evo for my boot and main programs. I really dont need more than 500g i know some ppl need 1T or more for their stuff but in my last rig i had a 500g HDD and i did not fill that

[Skora]

I was thinking of using 250's and put them in Raid 0. like i said i already have a 250g 850 evo for my boot and main programs. I really dont need more than 500g i know some ppl need 1T or more for their stuff but in my last rig i had a 500g HDD and i did not fill that

It should be fine, but remember nothing is guaranteed. Also why a RAID 0? Why not something more reassuring like say RAID 5 or RAID 1?

[Militarysniper2]

I was going to say Intel but then @Briggsy beat me to it so there you go. If you were wondering, Intel drives kill themselves when they're at a point where they shouldn't be holding your data. This is a good thing. It makes everything read only so that you can access stuff on it and save it somewhere else before it just dies suddenly.

and yes i was thinking of Intel b/c of their performance is every well known. you can run them into the ground and then some. but I was also thinking of Samsung as well maybe like the 850 Pro's idk @Briggsy said some i feel would be a little wonky in Raid 0

[Militarysniper2]

It should be fine, but remember nothing is guaranteed. Also why a RAID 0? Why not something more reassuring like say RAID 5 or RAID 1?

well i guess i could do 1,4, or 5. i understand that if one drive fails in 0 then everything is gone but iv never had drives really crap out the worst iv had is a boot SSD stop working. but i make sure to back up on a regular basis so and i dont keep anything too too important on it. usually photos when i copy them onto computer next thing i do is copy them again onto external hard drive

[Skora]

well i guess i could do 1,4, or 5. i understand that if one drive fails in 0 then everything is gone but iv never had drives really crap out the worst iv had is a boot SSD stop working. but i make sure to back up on a regular basis so and i dont keep anything too too important on it. usually photos when i copy them onto computer next thing i do is copy them again onto external hard drive

Personally i'd go with a least RAID 5. SSD's can only be written to a specific number of times before they give up the ghost. Grab three of them and run 'em in RAID 5.

 

If capacity isn't an issue, grab two of them and run a RAID 1.

 

I've had absolutely CATASTROPHIC failures with SSD's before, and running a RAID 0 in my opinion is just screaming for issues.

[soup]

There is a zero on that for a reason.

Because RAID starts with Redundancy but there is none in a 'RAID 0' set up.

 

Does anyone really need the speed of RAID 0 SSDs?

I have a pet (was going to say hate but that is far too strong a word, so) aversion to RAID 0 it strikes me as a doubling of potential failure with an esoteric speed increase that beyond benchmarks the average person will not be able to detect anyway .Shades of the human eye can't see beyond... yes many can detect it in a back to back test but in everyday use...

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I was going to say Intel but then Briggsy beat me to it so there you go. If you were wondering, Intel drives kill themselves when they're at a point where they shouldn't be holding your data. This is a good thing. It makes everything read only so that you can access stuff on it and save it somewhere else before it just dies suddenly.

 

It is worth noting that when the Intel drives go into read-only mode, they will only work until you shut down the PC (no idea if you can put it to sleep safely, but I doubt it).  Basically you only have one opportunity to back up your data, after that the SSDs are bricked and there's zero chance of accessing whatever is on there. 

 

That also makes me feel sorry for those who will eventually have an SSD go into read-only just as they click on the "shut down" button/icon.

[Briggsy]

another thing to consider about raid setups that use parity bits (i.e. - raid 5) to duplicate data, is that if a drive dies, you might need to first remove the dead drive and replace it with a new drive, in order for the data to be rebuilt and for the raid to function. It's why I personally run Raid 0 with three 1TB HDD's for my steam games, and have syncbackfree mirroring that raid on a nightly schedule to a 3TB disk. Worst case scenario I have to swap drive letters in windows and carry on instead of having a spare drive lying around doing nothing. but everyone has their preference.

[Militarysniper2]

There is a zero on that for a reason.

Because RAID starts with Redundancy but there is none in a 'RAID 0' set up.

 

Does anyone really need the speed of RAID 0 SSDs?

I have a pet (was going to say hate but that is far too strong a word, so) aversion to RAID 0 it strikes me as a doubling of potential failure with an esoteric speed increase that beyond benchmarks the average person will not be able to detect anyway .Shades of the human eye can't see beyond... yes many can detect it in a back to back test but in everyday use...

it is not so much about the speed as it's just about increasing memory size. I mean i could run a Raid 5 but like Briggsy i do regular backups and the only important data is photos but as soon as I'm done putting those on my drives i then make a double of the folder and put that into my external drive for storage. And most of my stuff can just be redownloaded IE steam games or Origin. This is strictly a gaming machine that is only used for personal use every now and then such as writing reports or dumping photos

[soup]

it is not so much about the speed as it's just about increasing memory size

If it is about memory size why not just have two seperate discs? Why RAID them?