Raid0 risk

[Ergroilnin]

So,

 

I get that Raid0 essentially splits data between two drives (or more), while being able to look up the data with access of both (or more...), thus increasing the loading times of games and files in general.

 

I also seen tons of people saying it is not worth it solely because of the possible corruption, since if one disc goes, so does the another, at least as far, as data goes.

 

But I wondered and never seen this answered, is there any more danger to actual corruption of the data/damage to the disc from the Raid0 set up, or is it simply just the fact that using two physical storages set up as one logical storage is simply twice the risk, since it is not about one disc failing but either one of the two failing?

[Crunchy Dragon]

The risk with RAID 0 is the lack of redundancy. If either drive fails, corrupts, or otherwise stops from working normally, then all your data is gone.

[FloRolf]

Raid0 drives are not more likely to fail, no. 

[Christophe Corazza]

RAID 0 doubles your chance of storage failure (assuming a 2-disk Raid 0). Why? Because now you are relying on the reliability of 2 disks, instead of just one.

RAID 10 brings back a reasonable level of reliability.

[dizmo]

It's not only the drive you have to worry about, the array itself can also fail. That's why the risk is so much higher.

Really, a single drive is just overall better. Unless you're going to RAID0 2 NVMe drives and for some reason need that speed.