Raid 0 SSD Worth It?

[Brentfisher71]

So I was planning on running two SSDs in Raid 0 to make my operating system (only) run blazing fast. I was thinking,"If I have a 500mb/s ssd and put it in raid 0 with another one then I would get 1gb/s" but I recently have been looking up this to confirm and nobody can give me a straight answer. People were saying how the sata port on the motherboard can only support up to 600mb/s so its not even worth it. Is this true? Is it worth it? idk I'm just really confused about the whole topic and need some conformation.

[KezzaMcFezza]

If you have 2 ssds in raid 0 it will run fast as 1GB or 800 GB, though go for high end SSD's.

What people have been saying about the sata being too slow to support those speeds are right but not in the way you think they were.

if an engine runs at 1000 horsepower but the driveshaft can only output 700. the engine is still fast.

 

Hope this helps

[Brentfisher71]

3 minutes ago, ProKeero said:

If you have 2 ssds in raid 0 it will run fast as 1GB or 800 GB, though go for high end SSD's.

What people have been saying about the sata being too slow to support those speeds are right but not in the way you think they were.

if an engine runs at 1000 horsepower but the driveshaft can only output 700. the engine is still fast.

 

Hope this helps

Alright, but I was thinking of the SATA ports as sort of a bottleneck to the speed of my storage.

[KezzaMcFezza]

Just now, Brentfisher71 said:

Alright, but I was thinking of the SATA ports as sort of a bottleneck to the speed of my storage.

Nah its all good, the operating system will run at 800mbps but the sata can only tell the computer what to do at 600mbps.

[Brentfisher71]

Just now, ProKeero said:

Nah its all good, the operating system will run at 800mbps but the sata can only tell the computer what to do at 600mbps.

Ok, thank you so much. So in conclusion, it IS worth it to spend the extra $40 to get a second SSD for raid 0?

[Enderman]

1) more speed does not make your operating system "go faster"

 

2) unless youre a content creator, 1GBps is useless and a waste of money

 

3) software raid on consumer motherboards is crap, be prepared to lose all your data and have to reinstall windows when your array fails

 

4) buy a single larger SSD to fit more stuff on it, not for "more speed"

[Brentfisher71]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) more speed does not make your operating system "go faster"

 

2) unless youre a content creator, 1GBps is useless and a waste of money

 

3) software raid on consumer motherboards is crap, be prepared to lose all your data and have to reinstall windows when your array fails

 

4) buy a single larger SSD to fit more stuff on it, not for "more speed"

I am a content creator. I work as a video/audio technician and I do edit a lot of video as well as still images and audio files. 

[KezzaMcFezza]

10 minutes ago, Brentfisher71 said:

Ok, thank you so much. So in conclusion, it IS worth it to spend the extra $40 to get a second SSD for raid 0?

Yea its worth it as long as you buy long lasting SSD's

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Brentfisher71 said:

I am a content creator. I work as a video/audio technician and I do edit a lot of video as well as still images and audio files. 

oh

then buy an NVME SSD, dont do raid

 

[Captain_WD]

On 21.03.2016 г. at 6:54 AM, Brentfisher71 said:

~snip~

Hey there

 

If you use RAID0 the SATA controller shouldn't be bottlenecking your speed as each port is a SATAIII and supports speeds of up to 600MB/s . this gives you a total of 1200MB/s or 1.2GB/s limit on two ports so you should be fine on the speed part. 

 

Have in mind that RAID0 mainly boosts the sequential read/write speeds whereas it has little effect on the random ones. I'd really check first if your applications and work benefit more from the sequential or the random speeds before deciding on this as sequential speeds have far less influence on the daily routine such as booting or regular performance. Some users even report longer boot times when booting from RAID0 arrays.

 

Another thing to have in mind is that RAID0 offers no redundancy at all and if one of the drives fails or drops out of the array you would lose everything on both drives. That plus the fact that RAID puts more work and pressure on the drives in the array results in higher risk for your data. I'd strongly suggest keeping backups of the things on the array.

 

Captain_WD.

[EmeraldFlame]

6 hours ago, Captain_WD said:

Hey there

 

If you use RAID0 the SATA controller shouldn't be bottlenecking your speed as each port is a SATAIII and supports speeds of up to 600MB/s . this gives you a total of 1200MB/s or 1.2GB/s limit on two ports so you should be fine on the speed part. 

 

Have in mind that RAID0 mainly boosts the sequential read/write speeds whereas it has little effect on the random ones. I'd really check first if your applications and work benefit more from the sequential or the random speeds before deciding on this as sequential speeds have far less influence on the daily routine such as booting or regular performance. Some users even report longer boot times when booting from RAID0 arrays.

 

Another thing to have in mind is that RAID0 offers no redundancy at all and if one of the drives fails or drops out of the array you would lose everything on both drives. That plus the fact that RAID puts more work and pressure on the drives in the array results in higher risk for your data. I'd strongly suggest keeping backups of the things on the array.

 

Captain_WD.

I feel that it is worth mentioning that some publications, primarily PC Perspective, have demonstrated that a Multi-SSD raid doesn't necessarily increase random IO bandwidth, but it does seem to significantly improve latency/seek times though, at least when under high random IO load because it is better able to balance the load between the multiple drives. That is something a user may notice, but could be very hard to quantify.

[Captain_WD]

11 hours ago, EmeraldFlame said:

~snip~

Quite true! Again, it really depends on the type of usage if the OP will notice significant improvements or not and if the increased risk for the data is worth the performance gain. But I agree with this info! 

 

Captain_WD.