3x Raid 0

[Whitebear707]

My question is, Is it possible to have 3 Raids under the same motherboard. I bought a gigabyte z370 aorus gaming 5. 

Im getting two M.2 SAMSUNG 960 EVO to put them in RAID 0. and I want to have two SSDS 2.5" SAMSUNG 860 Pro in raid 0 and 2x 4tb HDDs in raid 1. Is it possible to set this up or will i need something else to do this. 

[Enderman]

That's a complete waste.

Even a single nvme ssd is not going to offer any improvement to your os or program speed.

Don't buy NVME unless you know what it's good for.

 

Just buy more/larger sata SSDs, ideally you can use sata SSDs for everything and not need hard drives.

 

Raid just increases the potential for data loss.

You're better off not doing raid and simply using separate drives for regular backups, preferably in a second computer or offsite PC.

[Radium_Angel]

8 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Raid just increases the potential for data loss.

Care to explain this? Because the whole point of RAID is to offer redundancy (you know, the R in RAID....) for data. It *decreases* potential for data loss...

[sigge300]

4 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Care to explain this? Because the whole point of RAID is to offer redundancy (you know, the R in RAID....) for data. It *decreases* potential for data loss...

raid 0 split the file onto the 2 drives, so if one drive fails you basically lost all your data

[johnny5c]

2 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Care to explain this? Because the whole point of RAID is to offer redundancy (you know, the R in RAID....) for data. It *decreases* potential for data loss...

No redundancy in RAID 0

 

A single 2TB 850 Evo would be a better choice and much cheaper than the four SSDs you listed.

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Care to explain this? Because the whole point of RAID is to offer redundancy (you know, the R in RAID....) for data. It *decreases* potential for data loss...

1) raid 0 stripes the data across both drives. If either one of the drives fails, 100% of the data is lost. If the raid array is corrupted (by an OS problem, power outage, flipped bit, etc) all the data is also lost, even if the drives are ok.

For example:

 

2) raid 1 is redundant mirroring across both drives, so this is good in the case of a hard drive failure, however you still have the risk and problems that come with software or motherboard raid. If you want the raid to be reliable, you should be buying a proper server-grade hardware raid card which will cost several hundred or thousand dollars. Not motherboard raid or software raid.

 

3) offsite backups are the most reliable way to prevent data loss. It is not susceptible to a flood or fire or break-in to your home, or all the potential problems from raid.

[Radium_Angel]

7 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) raid 0 stripes the data across both drives. If either one of the drives fails, 100% of the data is lost. If the raid array is corrupted (by an OS problem, power outage, flipped bit, etc) all the data is also lost, even if the drives are ok.

For example:

 

2) raid 1 is redundant mirroring across both drives, so this is good in the case of a hard drive failure, however you still have the risk and problems that come with software or motherboard raid. If you want the raid to be reliable, you should be buying a proper server-grade hardware raid card which will cost several hundred or thousand dollars. Not motherboard raid or software raid.

 

3) offsite backups are the most reliable way to prevent data loss. It is not susceptible to a flood or fire or break-in to your home, or all the potential problems from raid.

RAID 0 isn't RAID, because it lacks the R part.

I thought you were talking about RAID in general.

Carry on.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Radium_Angel said:

RAID 0 isn't RAID, because it lacks the R part.

I thought you were talking about RAID in general.

Carry on.

Raid 0 is a type of raid....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

[Radium_Angel]

I'm not getting in a pissing match with you, but the R stands for Redundant.

"RAID" 0 isn't raid, because there's no redundancy...