Is raid 0 worth while for gaming?

[MrMarcus]

I understand the concept of raid 0, I am wondering if it is worth while if my pc is mostly used for gaming. Also, take into account that I am currently using my 500 GB SSD as my boot drive, so I'm pretty sure I will have to reload my OS, which isn't that big of a deal, but still kind of a pain. I guess my question is will I get an uber super duper performance boost for games, if not, I'd rather not go thru setting up raid and reloading my OS, especially since I just did that for Windows 10. Also, in raid 0 you do keep all of your capacity correct? I have one 500 GB so if I get another 500 GB, I will have 1 TB? Pretty sure this is the case, but just want to hear what you all have to say. I currently have the majority of my games on a 1 TB HDD, I try to keep my SSD mostly for the OS, but I have room for of my most played games without filling it up. I want another SSD, so I can have all my games on SSD and leave my HDD for whatever, music, pictures, etc. I almost think it would be better to keep my OS drive separate and not in raid. But, I'd like to hear the pros and cons. Hit me up with the 411 guys. 

[Oshino Shinobu]

You will get better loading times, that is it. You will see no change in performance while gaming. 

 

In RAID 0 (using 2 drives), the data is essentially split in half, so half the data is on one drive, with the other half is on the second drive. It would increase the capacity by doubling the smallest drive's capacity (again, this is for two drives). So in your case, it would become 1TB if you put two 500GB drives in RAID 0. 

 

It provides some speed boosts, but also doubles the chances of losing any data on the array, as if a single drive fails, you'll effectively lose all of the data.

 

RAID 0 is not limited to 2 drives though. It can be done with 2 or more, theoretically hundreds of drives if you had hardware to support it. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it for gaming. The boost in performance will be basically unnoticeable for every day use, and the risk of losing data is not worth it. 

 

EDIT: If you get a second SSD, I would just keep them separate and have the OS and some programs on one, with games on the other. Ideally, you don't want your OS on a RAID 0 array, because of the increased chances of losing the data. (Says the person with their OS on a RAID 0 array. But hey, do as I say, not as I do, right?)

[Fulgrim]

The question you ask is wrong imo.

 

It should instead be "How far can your wallet stretch?"

 

In general, RAID 0 isn't worth it unless you're doing it just for better synthetic benchmarks etc, it will only alter load times a small fraction if you put 2 SSD's in RAID 0.

 

Then you have to factor in that if one of the drives in RAID 0 dies, you lose your data for both. :<

[soaringchicken]

You will get better loading times, that is it. You will see no change in performance while gaming. 

 

In RAID 0 (using 2 drives), the data is essentially split in half, so half the data is on one drive, with the other half is on the second drive. It would increase the capacity by doubling the smallest drive's capacity (again, this is for two drives). So in your case, it would become 1TB if you put two 500GB drives in RAID 0. 

 

It provides some speed boosts, but also doubles the chances of losing any data on the array, as if a single drive fails, you'll effectively lose all of the data.

 

RAID 0 is not limited to 2 drives though. It can be done with 2 or more, theoretically hundreds of drives if you had hardware to support it. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it for gaming. The boost in performance will be basically unnoticeable for every day use, and the risk of losing data is not worth it. 

 

EDIT: If you get a second SSD, I would just keep them separate and have the OS and some programs on one, with games on the other. Ideally, you don't want your OS on a RAID 0 array, because of the increased chances of losing the data. (Says the person with their OS on a RAID 0 array. But hey, do as I say, not as I do, right?)

Oshino has basically said everything that needed to be said, so I'm just going to point you at that ^

[MrMarcus]

You will get better loading times, that is it. You will see no change in performance while gaming. 

 

In RAID 0 (using 2 drives), the data is essentially split in half, so half the data is on one drive, with the other half is on the second drive. It would increase the capacity by doubling the smallest drive's capacity (again, this is for two drives). So in your case, it would become 1TB if you put two 500GB drives in RAID 0. 

 

It provides some speed boosts, but also doubles the chances of losing any data on the array, as if a single drive fails, you'll effectively lose all of the data.

 

RAID 0 is not limited to 2 drives though. It can be done with 2 or more, theoretically hundreds of drives if you had hardware to support it. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it for gaming. The boost in performance will be basically unnoticeable for every day use, and the risk of losing data is not worth it. 

 

EDIT: If you get a second SSD, I would just keep them separate and have the OS and some programs on one, with games on the other. Ideally, you don't want your OS on a RAID 0 array, because of the increased chances of losing the data. (Says the person with their OS on a RAID 0 array. But hey, do as I say, not as I do, right?)

 

This confirms what I was thinking, but with more detail. 

[barclow]

Everybody talks about losing data when using raid 0, here are some news for you, if you use a single drive, then you also have chance of losing data if the disk fails... I don't quite understand this paranoia with that.

[Blue4130]

9 hours ago, barclow said:

Everybody talks about losing data when using raid 0, here are some news for you, if you use a single drive, then you also have chance of losing data if the disk fails... I don't quite understand this paranoia with that.

Well with two drives, you double the chances of loosing everything. (and 6 year post necro, ouch) 

[barclow]

On 10/17/2021 at 11:18 AM, Blue4130 said:

Well with two drives, you double the chances of loosing everything. (and 6 year post necro, ouch) 

If the chance of failing for a hard disk drive is 0.1%, double chance means 0.2%, again, I believe its a cognitive bias.

I was raised in the era where hard drives wasn't the mainstream, you needed to boot DOS from a floppy drive, when DOS was on memory, swap the floppy drive for the program you wanted to execute. Doubling chance of failure on a modern hard disk drive is nothing.

PS: Sorry for reviving a post so old, didn't want to create a new one just for saying that.

[Blue4130]

1 hour ago, barclow said:

If the chance of failing for a hard disk drive is 0.1%, double chance means 0.2%, again, I believe its a cognitive bias.

I was raised in the era where hard drives wasn't the mainstream, you needed to boot DOS from a floppy drive, when DOS was on memory, swap the floppy drive for the program you wanted to execute. Doubling chance of failure on a modern hard disk drive is nothing.

PS: Sorry for reviving a post so old, didn't want to create a new one just for saying that.

Yea, i am also old. I remember those days. What does it have to do with hdd failure rate? (which is much higher than 0.1% by the way, failure rate is 100% given long enough but even after 5 years, it's pretty significant)