add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube
SteelScorpionX
  • 3 months ago

What's the difference between Raid 0 and Raid 1

(1TB x 2)

Comments

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

The tl;dr version:

RAID 0 is striping - writing N blocks to each drive alternately.

RAID 1 is mirroring - each write goes to both drives.

The other posts go into more detail as to what each one is good for.

In case anyone is curious, RAID 2 and 3 are bit and byte striping and are almost never used; RAID 4 is block striping with a dedicated parity drive and is almost never used; RAID 5 is block striping with distributed parity and was popular for a while for error tolerance with decent performance; RAID 6 is an elaboration of RAID 5 with additional parity. None of the RAID 2-6 levels have much value for SSD.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Raid 0 would in theory (got to love those 2 words) give you 2X the speed and 2TB of storage it works like writes a 0 to first drive then 0 to 2nd drive back and forth. (their not really any real world advantage in speed other than just running benchmarks and if one drive dies you lose all your data.) this was useful when all they were was 7200RPM or 10000RPM hard drives this did show a speed increase.

Raid 1 you would have 1tb of storage and it writes to both drives at the same time so if 1 drive dies you still have all your data. Not really needed since anything you can't lose/replace that is on your drive should be backed up to another drive anyhow.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

in theory (got to love those 2 words)

Because there will be an overhead with whatever is managing the raid be it hardware raid or software raid. Generally I would not recommend raid on a home PC especially raid 0. Well raid 1/5/6 will help with redundancy in case of a drive failure but it is not a substitute for backups and if you do backups properly even without raid and you lose a drive you won't lose what is backed up.

As to elaborate and expand on what Zerk is saying:

As for why Raid 0 is pointless to most home users is because of NVMe speeds. Raid 0 does not make a notable improve 4k random read or the IOPS of the drives as it will take just as long for the drives to locate each file but it does improve throughput. Loading programs and games relies more on the IOPS of the drive than the max throughput so they will usually load about the same on RAID 0 or no raid at all. Tasks like video editing using raw 4k footage can definitely slow down on a SATA SSD but a good speed NVMe like a sebrant rocket or a 970 evo has enough throughput to handle it as it is faster than 5 SATA SSDs in raid 0 and much more cost effective than that too. Of course you can RAID 0 fast NVMe together but with that kind of throughput you are looking at a data center use or some other special use case that can actually benefit from it and that isn't something home users can see a benefit from.

RAID 0 also adds capacity together but with 1-2TB SSDs being rather affordable and monster capacities on HDDs these days also makes that pointless. The more drives you have in raid 0 the more volatile and prone to losing everything you get. Of course if a SSD or HDD has a chance to fail and if you have 2 drives in raid zero you have double the chances of failure if it is in raid 0.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Note that 5 SSDs in RAID 5 might make sense (especially if they were 1TB or so each). You should get most of the speed of 4 SSDs in RAID0, but also have parity in case one drive fails, and they way SSD prices work it might even be cheaper than a 4TB SSD (although they'd probably have to be NVMe drives to match a NVMe 4TB drive in speed, and that might get tricky).

In reality, just get the drive size you need in SSD (NVMe if possible) and get a bigger (and hopefully cheaper) rotating drive for backup.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Keep in mind a Samsung 970 evo plus gets a read speed up to 3500 MB/s while the sata port itself can handle up to 570 Mb/s per port. Assuming you have 5 SATA SSDs in raid 0 your max throughput speed (theatrical) is 2850 MB/s and that is without considering the overhead of the raid controller pushing the max down further. You don't have to worry about raid controller overhead when not using raid either so the high end NVME wins there. Then again gamers won't really see the benefit of a 970 evo plus over a sebrent rocket or even a 660p SSD which is much cheaper for the capacity so there are only a handful of use cases where that speed will matter like editing raw 4k video.

In reality, just get the drive size you need in SSD (NVMe if possible) and get a bigger (and hopefully cheaper) rotating drive for backup.

This is mostly good advice here. SSD for things that benefit from the added speed over HDDs like windows/programs/games and HDD for bulk files where speed is negligible. I would not count that as backup though so that is where I would disagree. Having your data in more than one place at a time is backing up so say one copy on your PC and another copy on an external and/or cloud backup.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube