Raid 0 vs M.2

[Chronified]

Much regrets getting a 240GB SSD. Should have saved the extra $30 for a 512GB. 

 

Would I see better performance gains using single M.2,

or would Raid.0 with 2x240GB give me better gains than M.2 on its own?

[LukeSavenije]

Both are not needed in general use. You should be better off using one for your programs and the other one for some games. Those higher speeds are only worth it for scratch disks or bragging rights

[Chronified]

1 minute ago, LukeSavenije said:

Both are not needed in general use. You should be better off using one for your programs and the other one for some games. Those higher speeds are only worth it for scratch disks or bragging rights

Not what I asked, but kk thx

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, Chronified said:

Not what I asked, but kk thx

You asked what would be better. I answered that question for you. And m.2 is just a formfactor. Nvme and sata are two different kinds of m.2

[Electronics Wizardy]

7 minutes ago, Chronified said:

Much regrets getting a 240GB SSD. Should have saved the extra $30 for a 512GB. 

 

Would I see better performance gains using single M.2,

or would Raid.0 with 2x240GB give me better gains than M.2 on its own?

m.2 is a formfactor, What specfic drive?

 

NVME drives can be faster than any sata drive raid

[Chronified]

Just now, Electronics Wizardy said:

m.2 is a formfactor, What specfic drive?

 

NVME drives can be faster than any sata drive raid

I'm considering a WD Black 512GB M.2  on Cyber Monday (soon approaching)

 

That or cheaping out and throwing in a 2nd V300 drive

 

[Stefan Payne]

14 minutes ago, Chronified said:

Much regrets getting a 240GB SSD. Should have saved the extra $30 for a 512GB. 

 

Would I see better performance gains using single M.2,

or would Raid.0 with 2x240GB give me better gains than M.2 on its own?

ONLY EVER do a 0 with scrappable throw away data.

 

For example a temporary "work drive" for video editing, where you put the stuff you edit right now. And if its gone, nobody cares, nothing lost - well, except for an hour or so of work...

For everything else, use single drives!!

 

You can use that for games or other stuff...

[Enderman]

Why would you waste your money on a V300, might as well buy a hard drive at that point.

Save up and get a good quality samsung SSD.

[Princess Luna]

you can always use the 240gb SSD as a gaming drive for quick loads and something, I'd just get the larger better SSD you're interested in.

[dizmo]

RAID0 is a stupid choice. Why more than double the chance of failure?

Just get a larger SSD. If you feel the need to waste money on NVME needlessly, go ahead, but I'd look at something like an HP EX920 or ADATA SX6000; they're generally pretty reasonable price wise.

[Chronified]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

ONLY EVER do a 0 with scrappable throw away data.

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

RAID0 is a stupid choice. Why more than double the chance of failure?

I don't need a lecture on how "dangerous" Raid 0 is. With proper backups any raid setup is non-dangerous. 

 

My desktop, documents, downloads, music, pictures and video folders are all set to a 2TB drive, as well as a full backup of my C drive every 24 hours. 

All of my "non throwaway" content is also in the cloud , I heavily use my GDrive since I get an extra 100GB as long as my old HTC is signed into GDrive.

So as for data loss, I could care less. 

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

Why would you waste your money on a V300, might as well buy a hard drive at that point.

Save up and get a good quality samsung SSD.

I was given an Amazon giftcard and that was the only 240GB in the pricerange at the time. I know, I know, I should have spent the extra $$ on a better one, but this is in the past now. I didn't know how bad a V300 drive could actually be. 

 

Saving up and getting a 2nd SSD that's faster for Raid 0 is pointless if the first drive is slow. I've seen moderate success in Raid 0 on V300 drives, but I may get an A400 drive since they're lower in price and higher in performance. 

 

Still no straight answer, what's faster?

Raid 0 V300 drives or a midrange 512GB nvme? 

[dizmo]

4 minutes ago, Chronified said:

Still no straight answer, what's faster?

Raid 0 V300 drives or a midrange 512GB m.2? 

Hmmm, one of the worst SSDs vs what I can only assume you mean as an NVME (since you're not telling us, and you've already been told M.2 is a form factor, not a data transfer type)? I wonder...

 

[Enderman]

13 minutes ago, Chronified said:

I was given an Amazon giftcard and that was the only 240GB in the pricerange at the time. I know, I know, I should have spent the extra $$ on a better one, but this is in the past now. I didn't know how bad a V300 drive could actually be. 

 

Saving up and getting a 2nd SSD that's faster for Raid 0 is pointless if the first drive is slow. I've seen moderate success in Raid 0 on V300 drives, but I may get an A400 drive since they're lower in price and higher in performance. 

Just sell it and buy a 512GB samsung drive.

[Stefan Payne]

19 minutes ago, Chronified said:

Raid 0 V300 drives or a midrange 512GB m.2? 

S-ATA is in theory around ~500MiB/sec.

Some shity PCIe m2 are already at 1400MiB/sec

The good ones are at 3GiB/Sec...

[SSD Sean]

I'd sell the V300 and suggest a Mushkin Pilot or ADATA SX8200 for $110. Either will be much faster than RAID 0 SATA SSDs.