[SOLVED] I was wondering about RAID 0. Is it worth it?

[briblo1982]

I was wondering about putting two x300 Toshiba 10TB Hard Drives together to create one single partition or should I juist run two partitions per drive?

 

[USAFRet]

RAID 0 is rarely a good idea.

What were you planning to do with it?

 

[briblo1982]

I would like to combine two drives instead of buying one big drive that can't afford

 

[briblo1982]

gaming mostly

 

[USAFRet]

I would like to combine two drives instead of buying one big drive that can't afford

Having 2 physical drives and drive letters is NO problem.
Steam makes this especially easy.

Putting games on a different drive.
Steam games location
In the steam client:
Steam
Settings
Downloads
Steam Library Folders
Add library folder

RAID 0 simply adds complexity and fail potential.

 

[briblo1982]

I have that setup already. I would like to have one big drive and have all the games installed on

 

[USAFRet]

I have that setup already. I would like to have one big drive and have all the games installed on

Well, it's your system.
I absolutely wouldn't.

 

[kekotr]

I was wondering about putting two x300 Toshiba 10TB Hard Drives together to create one single partition or should I juist run two partitions per drive?

I don't get the point why people are so afraid of raid0, I use it since 2011 never had one single problem
I have 2 500GB HDDs and with raid 0 I more than doubled the performance.

 

[USAFRet]

I don't get the point why people are so afraid of raid0, I use it since 2011 never had one single problem
I have 2 500GB HDDs and with raid 0 I more than doubled the performance.

And lagging far behind a 1TB SSD.

Yes, it used to be kind of a semi good idea. If you knew what it was, why you were doing it, and how to recover if something happens.
Inexpensive SSD's have gone past that.
2x 10TB, as the OP has? That's a LOT of data to put under a RAID 0.

 

[DSzymborski]

I have that setup already. I would like to have one big drive and have all the games installed on

That's a lot of effort and risk to have things have Steam games have a single drive letter and literally no other real-world benefit.

 

[popatim]

One hiccup in the raid and bye-bye all 20GB
As long as you don't mind re-downloading everything if the raid array fails for whatever reason; hdd dies, raid corrupts, Then go for it. If you're ok with it is all that matters, as long as you know if 1 drive dies there is no chance at recovering any of the data on them - half of every bye would be on the failed drive; that's the main drawback of raid 0.

 

[briblo1982]

Is there anyway to combine two drives into one without raid 0?

 

[DSzymborski]

Is there anyway to combine two drives into one without raid 0?

The obvious question to answer your question: why? You're dealing with data in which there's absolutely no advantage to having a single drive. Without knowing your goals or underlying reasoning, it's hard to guide you.

 

[briblo1982]

I have a lot of games like origin, steam, uplay, bethesda games, blizzard. I like to install all the games on a single drive

 

[DSzymborski]

I have a lot of games like origin, steam, uplay, bethesda games, blizzard. I like to install all the games on a single drive

I can't ethically assist you increasing the risk of losing all your game files solely so you don't have to see one extra letter in File Explorer. So all I can do is wish you luck, whatever you choose.

 

[AtotehZ]

@briblo1982 You still haven't answered what the point in installing everything on a single drive would be.

When you install a steam game you can choose the installation directory, across drives. Why is it a problem that steam has a game directory on both drives? It literally makes no practical difference.

Using raid for this is like taking a pair of twix bars and taping the ends of the 2 together because you only wanted 1 bar. As a reward you get to eat tape.

If you want to try RAID0 because you want to experience what it is, just try it. It can be faster, but most of the time it'll just be a hassle you don't need.

And I completely agree with the others mentioning the risks.
(oh, and I have 5 drives, PCE-E revodrive, 2x HDD, a 2.5" SSD and an NVME)

 

[mdd1963]

I have 2 500GB HDDs and with raid 0 I more than doubled the performance.

That should prove interesting, in the theory/details of more than doubling performance ...

 

[mdd1963]

One day, someone will be back here asking about data recovery for a single glitched drive for a RAID 0 resulting in the loss of the OS and data, all gone with the glitch of a single drive, as already occurs once per week or two in the storage section...

Best of luck to OP, of course with the 20 TB OS/gaming partition...

 

[DSzymborski]

I don't get the point why people are so afraid of raid0, I use it since 2011 never had one single problem
I have 2 500GB HDDs and with raid 0 I more than doubled the performance.

If you're gaming, which is the subject here, you absolutely did not double your performance.

These are typical. Because stashing Steam games is not what RAID is for.

 

[kekotr]

If you're gaming, which is the subject here, you absolutely did not double your performance.
These are typical. Because stashing Steam games is not what RAID is for.

That should prove interesting, in the theory/details of more than doubling performance ...

I used crystal disk and the values that I got there was around 120% increased. Both tests 1GB (thats why I said doubled)
bfv or cod warzone loading maps was so much more faster. I don't exactly know how much, but for example without raid0, I got the warzone map with only 17-20 seconds warmup left , after raid0 I got 51-55 seconds left of warmpup.
It is something to me. wth I would care about game files? For me it is 100% worth the "risk", I've been using raid0 since 9 years ago with different drives and never ever had one single issue. Maybe I'm lucky.

Just now I saw this guy want to do with 10TB drives, I wouldn't do that either because it is just too much space. I would do raid1 but the writing speed is the same according to some articles I've read.

 

[DSzymborski]

I used crystal disk and the values that I got there was around 120% increased. Both tests 1GB (thats why I said doubled)
bfv or cod warzone loading maps was so much more faster. I don't exactly know how much, but for example without raid0, I got the warzone map with only 17-20 seconds warmup left , after raid0 I got 51-55 seconds left of warmpup.
It is something to me. wth I would care about game files? For me it is 100% worth the "risk", I've been using raid0 since 9 years ago with different drives and never ever had one single issue. Maybe I'm lucky.

Just now I saw this guy want to do with 10TB drives, I wouldn't do that either because it is just too much space. I would do raid1 but the writing speed is the same according to some articles I've read.

Synthetics are not real-life performance.

Your recollection of map loading speeds isn't evidence, data is.