Raid 0 setup

[NoStepOnSnek]

Hey guys,

 

I've recently put together a new build and am just getting the finishing touches on it. Something I've been curious about is RAID 0. I purchased a couple of 128GB SSDs (HP S700 and a SAMSUNG 830 Series MZ-7PC128D) and when first building my computer I attempted to set them up in RAID 0. I was originally going to set up linux, and then windows on my rig, with no luck. After going through the instructions of setting up raid 0 with the motherboard ( A Gigabyte AB350M-DS3H), neither detected my RAID 0 volume, or my 3 TB Seagate HDD. I have a NVMe Drive that'll be here tomorrow and thought I'd try my luck again.

 

I guess my questions are as follows

1. Should I even bother with hardware RAID with my mobo?

2. Could the mismatched drives be part of the issue?

3. If so, why wouldn't my HDD show up?

4. If it is worth it, and there's some way to get it to work, then could somebody point me in the right direction as to how I'm supposed to set it up?

[Crunchy Dragon]

For RAID 0, both drives have to be identical in storage capacity. I've heard software RAID is better than hardware RAID.

[Streetguru]

3 minutes ago, NoStepOnSnek said:

 

You can set them up in RAID 0 inside of windows if you just want to run Crystal Disk Mark, but that's really all you should be doing with RAID 0.

[NoStepOnSnek]

They are both 128GB

[dizmo]

You should have just bought a single larger SSD.

RAID0 just brings more possible failure points, and with 128GB drives you actually see a performance increase from going up in capacity (single drive).

[Crunchy Dragon]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

RAID0 just brings more possible failure points

The funny thing is, RAID0 technically isn't even RAID since it doesn't offer redundancy

[Ithanul]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

The funny thing is, RAID0 technically isn't even RAID since it doesn't offer redundancy

Yeah, it is kind of ironic.  No redundancy to speak of.  Only increases point of failure more since now the data is stripped on extra drives that increase the chance of data loss if a drive goes belly up.

 

I know it was a big thing back with HDDs to do RAID 0 for speed gains, but now with SSDs, not much point to RAID 0.

[Rallenhayestime]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

The funny thing is, RAID0 technically isn't even RAID since it doesn't offer redundancy

While that is true, it still offers the best performance boost out of all RAID options. I personally don't use RAID at all, I've just combined my drives using windows disk manager so they are recognized as 1 drive with no performance increase or storage decrease. Mainly because all I do with that group is run Storj. I used to use my hard drives in raid0 and didn't have a failure.

[NoStepOnSnek]

I suppose that settles that then. Guess I'll just wait for a decent sale and my next paycheck and keep my eye out for a larger capacity drive.

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, NoStepOnSnek said:

I suppose that settles that then. Guess I'll just wait for a decent sale and my next paycheck and keep my eye out for a larger capacity drive.

Just set up SSD cacheing or something to speed up your system. FuzeDrive is the latest one.

Or buy a FireCuda Hybrid hard drive.

[dizmo]

51 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

The funny thing is, RAID0 technically isn't even RAID since it doesn't offer redundancy

Oh, does RAID mean redundancy? I've never actually looked into it too deeply.

[Ithanul]

5 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Oh, does RAID mean redundancy? I've never actually looked into it too deeply.

Redundant Array of Independent Disks.

Right in the name.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Ithanul said:

Redundant Array of Independent Disks.

Right in the name.

Ahh so that's what it stands for.

[NoStepOnSnek]

I thought the I ment inexpensive...