Jump to content

Why do people use Raid 0?

Guest
By Guest
in Storage Devices
 Share
Go to solution Solved by agent_x007,

Because it's CHEAP (from controller/disk space/speed gain point of view), and most people don't want/need more than 2-3 drives in RAID (over 3 is too much for MB's chipset either way).
You need minimum 3 identical drives for RAID5 and 4 drives for RAID6.

If your are smart, you simply get a BIG HDD to keep important things, and on RAID0 you keep things that you work on (or can be recovered by other means).

RAID0 does NOT help with latency.

Posted

I've watched Linus' video on all the different raid configurations and still don't get it. 

 

Apparently (if I'm understanding right) Raid 0 makes it so that the same data is stored across all the drive configured in Raid 0 but if one drive fails, all of the data will be destroyed. Can someone explain to me what the benefits of this are? I'm only seeing negatives right now.

Link to comment
https://linustechtips.com/topic/810389-why-do-people-use-raid-0/
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Performance. RAID 0 linearly scales performance. If you have two drives, you double the performance. Three drives, you triple it.

 

RAID 0 is only used when the person doesn't care if the data on the drive gets toast and demands maximum performance, so it's normally used for the OS and applications... because you can just reinstall them.

I have a blog! And a list of guides I've posted

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Performance. RAID 0 linearly scales performance. If you have two drives, you double the performance. Three drives, you triple it.

 

RAID 0 is only used when the person doesn't care if the data on the drive gets toast and demands maximum performance, so it's normally used for the OS and applications... because you can just reinstall them.

Got it, thank you!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Solution

Because it's CHEAP (from controller/disk space/speed gain point of view), and most people don't want/need more than 2-3 drives in RAID (over 3 is too much for MB's chipset either way).
You need minimum 3 identical drives for RAID5 and 4 drives for RAID6.

If your are smart, you simply get a BIG HDD to keep important things, and on RAID0 you keep things that you work on (or can be recovered by other means).

RAID0 does NOT help with latency.

CPU : Core i7 6950X @ 4.26 GHz + Hydronaut + TRVX + 2x Delta 38mm PWM
MB : Gigabyte X99 SOC (BIOS F23c)
RAM : 4x Patriot Viper Steel 4000MHz CL16 @ 3042MHz CL12.12.12.24 CR2T @1.48V.
GPU : Titan Xp Collector's Edition (Empire)
M.2/HDD : Samsung SM961 256GB (NVMe/OS) + + 3x HGST Ultrastar 7K6000 6TB
DAC : Motu M4 + Audio Technica ATH-A900Z
PSU: Seasonic X-760 || CASE : Fractal Meshify 2 XL || OS : Win 10 Pro x64
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Performance. RAID 0 linearly scales performance. If you have two drives, you double the performance. Three drives, you triple it.

 

RAID 0 is only used when the person doesn't care if the data on the drive gets toast and demands maximum performance, so it's normally used for the OS and applications... because you can just reinstall them.

People like me!

 

From experience, it's a lot faster. My particular array is 3 500GB drives, soon to be 5 500GB drives.

 

I play a lot of games in my free time, and loading time is significantly reduced.

 

Think of it as the storage equivalent to a multicore processor, each drive acts like a core in a way.

 

For me, my triple disk array is about as fast as my SSD. Three Seagate Barracuda 500GB SATAIII drives each running at 7200RPM. Each drive gets about 150MB/s read and 100MB/s write, which is good for a consumer drive.

 

Now triple that.

 

I get faster read on my RAID array than my SSD, but about the same write.

Main build: Intel Xeon E3 1240 | 16GB Avexir Red | Custom GTX 1050Ti | 1.5TB RAID0 | 500GB RAID0 | 240GB SSD | 240mm AiO | Thermaltake Dragonscale | Corsair CX600 v1

 

Media Center: Intel i5 3470 | 8GB Corsair XMS3 | GTX 550Ti XLR8 RED | 500GB WD Blue | Stock Intel | Dell 3010 Case | 250W PSU

 

Main Laptop: Gold HP DV7 1127CL | AMD Turion X2 RM-72 | 4GB DDR2 | AMD HD 3200M Graphics | 32GB Hually SSD | 1TB Western Digital Blue

 

Backup Laptop: Intel C2M T7200 | 4GB DDR2 | AMD X1600 Graphics | 160GB Seagate Momentus

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
5 minutes ago, agent_x007 said:

Because it's cheap (from controller/disk space/speed point of view), and most people don't more than 2-3 drives in RAID (over 3 is too much for MB's chipset).
If your are smart, you simply get a BIG HDD to keep important things, and RAID0 you keep things that you work on.

RAID0 does NOT help with latency.

Soon I'm gonna have a 5-disk RAID0 array.

 

My NAS uses 5 3TB drives in RAID0, but it's got a Dell SAS5 RAID controller that was built for up to 10 disks.

Main build: Intel Xeon E3 1240 | 16GB Avexir Red | Custom GTX 1050Ti | 1.5TB RAID0 | 500GB RAID0 | 240GB SSD | 240mm AiO | Thermaltake Dragonscale | Corsair CX600 v1

 

Media Center: Intel i5 3470 | 8GB Corsair XMS3 | GTX 550Ti XLR8 RED | 500GB WD Blue | Stock Intel | Dell 3010 Case | 250W PSU

 

Main Laptop: Gold HP DV7 1127CL | AMD Turion X2 RM-72 | 4GB DDR2 | AMD HD 3200M Graphics | 32GB Hually SSD | 1TB Western Digital Blue

 

Backup Laptop: Intel C2M T7200 | 4GB DDR2 | AMD X1600 Graphics | 160GB Seagate Momentus

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Also want to add that only the transfer rate scales linearly. Response times do not. So if you have a hard drive with an average response time of 10ms, your average response time regardless of how many disks you add to the RAID0 array will be 10ms.

I have a blog! And a list of guides I've posted

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
10 minutes ago, Celios said:

I've watched Linus' video on all the different raid configurations and still don't get it. 

 

Apparently (if I'm understanding right) Raid 0 makes it so that the same data is stored across all the drive configured in Raid 0 but if one drive fails, all of the data will be destroyed. Can someone explain to me what the benefits of this are? I'm only seeing negatives right now.

Imagine one 32gb file on an hdd that has a read speed of 80mbps. Now imagine that data pulled apart every other line into many little pieces spread between two hard drives that read the file at the same time, making it twice as quick. Since it's two hard drives you also get twice the storage. Only downside is that if one fails the data on the other becomes useless since it only has half of every file on the pc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Storage Devices

×