SSD's in RAID 0 on new build.

[Ogretron]

You lose data regardless, SSD data retrieval is close to not happening. (i.e. impossible)

You have to see the situation and act on it, thus requiring to read the thread properly before replying.

What I said was that if one drive fails in a Raid0 setup you lose all data that's on both drives, but if they're separate (let's say AHCI) and one goes bad you'll still have the data on the other.

Didn't think it needed to be stated you lose data on the drive that goes bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Evildeffy]

Yes and ofcourse by not reading you missed my point.

There should be no other data then programmes, games and the OS on the SSDs, this has been and for the moment always will be the case, making everything on the SSDs "expendable".
Tell me, how many games do you know of, or pogrammes for that matter, that will still operate without requiring a re-install after the main drive dies?
For that matter, how much muck and crap will there be in the registry of the OS (presuming Windows) if the 2ndary drive goes bad which will yet again require a re-install of said programmes and games.

Didn't think it needed to be re-stated what plain logic stands for.

[Ogretron]

What are you even arguing about? I have not said or hinted at anything contradicting your posts. You are clearly misunderstanding what I'm saying and replying before thinking. Please stop.

[Evildeffy]

Really? ... i can't actually discern whether or not you're trolling or simply do not know what's being said.

If it's a troll attempt, i applaud you for masking it in such a manner that i cannot detect it.

[Tahapenes]

Actually no, RAID10 is exactly as he described.
You RAID0 some drives, then those RAID0 drives are mirrored, this is the effect of RAID10 or also known as 1+0.



Edit: Actually you're correct, i'm sleeping, my bad, the effect is however the same. They work seemlessly unless both (or more) of the same set are damaged.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 02:43 AM ----------

Not quite, there is a difference. In RAID 0+1, if you lose a drive from each stripe, you're done and have to rebuild and restore from backup. In RAID 1+0, the difference is you have to lose the same mirrored pair to be done. This means that RAID 1+0 is more robust than RAID 0+1 because if you have an array like the following:

16 disks, 1 through 16:
You mirror 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8, 9 and 10, 11 and 12, 13 and 14, and 15 and 16, then run the stripes across 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16.

Now say you have a catastophic failure and lose a number of disks.

In RAID 1+0, you could lose 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and still recover since you didn't lose both drives from a single mirror. However, if you had set that up as RAID 0+1, as soon as you lost disks 1 and 4, you were done as both stripes were then trashed. This is why RAID 1+0 is preferable to RAID 0+1

As a note, I work in managed hosting and deal with storage all the time, espeically with DBs that have to have 99.99% uptimes and better and I would never, ever go with RAID 0+1, but RAID 1+0 because 1+0 is more safe (but this is geting off topic from what the OP was talking about).

So repeating from previous post for OP, don't RAID 0 SSDs unless it is cost effective to go with two smaller SSDs instead of one larger (where you might buy two 128G SSDs for $200, but the single 256G would be $220 or more).

[Evildeffy]

Oi, i did say you were correct with the edit did i not you blind bat?

I meant with working seemlessly with that Chaz said and what you meant with RAID10 (or RAID 1+0).

You forgot 1 more thing though as to the last part of your statement.
RAID0 might actually be more beneficial to TLC NAND drives to lower wear and tear since they are significantly lower than MLC NAND.

[Ogretron]

Really? ... i can't actually discern whether or not you're trolling or simply do not know what's being said.

If it's a troll attempt, i applaud you for masking it in such a manner that i cannot detect it.

Please show me what I said that confused you. Quote me exactly what I said and tell me what you took from it . That's the only way I can see what you aren't understanding.

I have yet to see you say anything that shows I was wrong in my statement. So either learn to read, or stop trying to start fights over something so stupid. You don't need to take it out on other people because you are having a bad day. It's very easy to have an intelligent conversation without getting hostile.

[Evildeffy]

As already mentioned, Raid0 with SSDs is pretty much useless in a normal home computer. You might gain a little speed, but it will be so small you wouldn't notice the difference. The downside is that if one of your SSDs go belly up, you lose everything (edit - you lose data on every drive that is part of the Raid0 because there is no redundancy. Thanks Evil, didn't know that needed clarifying). Not worth it.

Keep them separate.

This part, and the added italic edit kinda make your post even more "taunting" as it's a rather "Yes, you lose data Captain Obvious!" statement without actually reading into the posts made in the thread or actually reading what i read.
Regardless of RAID0 or not, the data is gone, even if they are seperate drives and you get the situation i mentioned again.

It is possible to have an intelligent conversation without being belligerent and actually reading the contents of the thread beyond the first post of the OP.

[Ogretron]

Ah, there we go. About time. As I said in the first 3 words, I know it was already stated and I just wanted to mention it again. I stated the small advantage you get isn't worth the disadvantage (however small) and mentioned that all data across the raid is lost if only one drive goes bad. My bad there, didn't know I wasn't allowed to voice my opinion if someone else has already said the same thing. Of course the edit was "taunting", you replied assuming I didn't know that so I had to make it clear in case someone else misunderstood me.

What I said was true, and the only thing we disagree on is that you say it's 100% safe, which I do not. I don't think its "OH MY GEEZUS TWICE THE CHANCE OF A FAILURE OH NOES", but it is still something to consider when weighing pros and cons. Nowhere did I mention or care about what sort of data is actually going to be on the drive(s), or what happens to the data on the drive that does go bad so I have no idea why you brought that up. Just because I didn't respond directly to your post doesn't mean I didn't read the whole thread, thanks for *wrongly* assuming I only read the OP though. I did glance over your post but decided not to go into detail because everything I would say has already been said, so I just simplified my statement.

I'm a little surprised you responded in such a polite manner though. I was expecting more childish assumptions and insults but you actually stepped up.

[Evildeffy]

Ah, there we go. About time. As I said in the first 3 words, I know it was already stated and I just wanted to mention it again. I stated the small advantage you get isn't worth the disadvantage (however small) and mentioned that all data across the raid is lost if only one drive goes bad. My bad there, didn't know I wasn't allowed to voice my opinion if someone else has already said the same thing. Of course the edit was "taunting", you replied assuming I didn't know that so I had to make it clear in case someone else misunderstood me.

The way you stated it is without any information of something that was said earlier, you only stated exactly what someone who doesn't actually read properly, it's not that hard to actually things like "In my opinion, even with the earlier mentioned info, it is not worth doing." rather than doing it the way you did.
As far as you taunt goes, it was belligerent and i had not in any post of mine insulted you, slightly demeaning maybe, but no insult at any point.

What I said was true, and the only thing we disagree on is that you say it's 100% safe, which I do not. I don't think its "OH MY GEEZUS TWICE THE CHANCE OF A FAILURE OH NOES", but it is still something to consider when weighing pros and cons. Nowhere did I mention or care about what sort of data is actually going to be on the drive(s), or what happens to the data on the drive that does go bad so I have no idea why you brought that up. Just because I didn't respond directly to your post doesn't mean I didn't read the whole thread, thanks for *wrongly* assuming I only read the OP though. I did glance over your post but decided not to go into detail because everything I would say has already been said, so I just simplified my statement.

And i have stated that it doesn't matter which drive goes kaput, the data is lost regardless and will be requiring the exact amount of work to "fix", the point you're still missing.
And if things had already been said, you can voice your opinion like in the example above rather then stating only a part of an entire story and have it be the alpha and omega of truths.

You wish to contribute, then present an argument or state that it is your opinion rather than "This is how it is, and nothing else.".

I'm a little surprised you responded in such a polite manner though. I was expecting more childish assumptions and insults but you actually stepped up.

I have not in a single post of mine insulted you or acted childishly, as you are so assuming right now, how about you get off your high horse and act in a decent manner, not one befitting a child as you so eloquently put it.

[MastaMcKay]

Sorry guys I didn't intend to start a war.

Honestly if I had known before buying just how bad TLC is (I knew it was worse) in comparison to MLC I wouldn't have got them. But unfortunately it's too late to return and I just have to hope they don't fail. I guess that explains why the cost per gb was so much lower than the rest even though it was samsung, and I got what I paid for then. Well I was thinking you know just keep them separate to ensure trim functions correctly but now with a heightened interest in even wear and simplicity of one combined drive I'm on the fence again in regards to raid 0. What will sell me on it is if I have the ability to use trim with these ssd's in a raid 0 configuration (I have asus maximus v formula and will be installing windows 8). On a side note will I be able to update firmware on these things even if the operating system is running off them and they're in raid 0 or no?

[Saithes]

Sorry guys I didn't intend to start a war.

Honestly if I had known before buying just how bad TLC is (I knew it was worse) in comparison to MLC I wouldn't have got them. But unfortunately it's too late to return and I just have to hope they don't fail. I guess that explains why the cost per gb was so much lower than the rest even though it was samsung, and I got what I paid for then. Well I was thinking you know just keep them separate to ensure trim functions correctly but now with a heightened interest in even wear and simplicity of one combined drive I'm on the fence again in regards to raid 0. What will sell me on it is if I have the ability to use trim with these ssd's in a raid 0 configuration (I have asus maximus v formula and will be installing windows 8). On a side note will I be able to update firmware on these things even if the operating system is running off them and they're in raid 0 or no?

Only Intel 7 series chipsets (H77, Z77, Z75, etc) have TRIM available in RAID 0. The quality isn't an issue with TLC, its the performance of it. Overall the quality of the TLC should be just as good as the MLC but as I said the performance difference will be there. Modern SSD's have a feature called Garbage Collection which acts almost like TRIM for each individual drive on a hardware level and functions in RAID or not.

People are really just throwing a fit because you bought lower performance for a lower price and didn't spend more money. I would honestly ignore anyone who's bitching about anything related to that.

[Evildeffy]

Only Intel 7 series chipsets (H77, Z77, Z75, etc) have TRIM available in RAID 0. The quality isn't an issue with TLC, its the performance of it. Overall the quality of the TLC should be just as good as the MLC but as I said the performance difference will be there. Modern SSD's have a feature called Garbage Collection which acts almost like TRIM for each individual drive on a hardware level and functions in RAID or not.

Incorrect, the 5 and 6 series Chipsets can be enabled aswell, Intel has not done so for commercial reasons, but it is easily enabled and verified working.
Due to the nature of TRIM, it is better than Garbage Collection.

People are really just throwing a fit because you bought lower performance for a lower price and didn't spend more money. I would honestly ignore anyone who's bitching about anything related to that.

As much as a standard consumer might not notice anything about it, a gamer that plays a ton of other games barring WoW may well encounter the issue (DAMN YOU STEAM SALES! DAMN YOU!!!) - TLC is simply put less durable than MLC by quite a long shot, doesn't mean it's worse in performance or w/e, the durability is simply lower.

@ MastaMcKay
As far as updating firmware in RAID0... i honestly do not know, generally most SSDs cannot be updated in RAID0, i doubt that will have changed.
As far as starting a war goes, you should ignore it, just a quarrel between me and Ogretron.
You should be fine with w/e you choose to do, i will admit though, there have been a couple of wonky issues with Windows 8 and RAID0 TRIM on all chipsets, not all function properly where Windows 7 instantly responds, it's a bit odd.

When home i will post the link where the info is, beware it's a HUGE ass post.

[Saithes]

Incorrect, the 5 and 6 series Chipsets can be enabled aswell, Intel has not done so for commercial reasons, but it is easily enabled and verified working.
Due to the nature of TRIM, it is better than Garbage Collection.

It involves flashing the OROM of your board with a modified RST Firmware. Thus, officially the 7 series is the only series of boards from Intel that support TRIM in RAID 0.

[Evildeffy]

It involves flashing the OROM of your board with a modified RST Firmware. Thus, officially the 7 series is the only series of boards from Intel that support TRIM in RAID 0.

Correct, but it is still easily done.
Not to mention that All Gigabyte and ASUS BIOS files have already been done by 1 of the users in the aforementioned thread.

Whilst officially only the 7 series chipset has the support, not using it on the 5 or 6 series would be non-sensical if you actually CAN do it, don't you agree?

I only wish the X58 would've been supported, i'd be a happy man.

[DeltrusDisc]

Raid0 = Striping, better speed, no redundancy
Raid1 = Mirroring, basically copying a drive on the fly

He meant in terms of, say you bought a 128GB SSD and 256GB SSD, and decided to RAID them, the second would only get 128GB used.