Question Is My Samsung 970 EVO RAID Setup Healthy?

Mar 4, 2023
4
0
10
Hello,
After learning about the possibility of my two drives going bad, I attempted to check the firmware on my 2TB 970 EVO PLUS drives running in a RAID 0 configuration. (That is the extent of my jargon -- and if memory serves me, it took several days of searching the internet to get that to work...)
And it does work just fine. I just can't see it in Samsung Magician because apparently it isn't supported.
So, I'm wondering if it is important to worry about this? If so, is there another (relatively painless) way to check the firmware?
Thanks.
 

DSzymborski

Titan
Moderator
Yeah, definitely going to need more information as to why you suspect there's a problem.

On a more general level, I wouldn't classify any RAID0 SSD build as healthy unless it was being used as a high-end editing rig or a server that could afford no downtime. If these aren't your uses and you do have significant problems, your best option is to save the headache and wipe the absurd RAID.
 
Raid-0 has been over hyped as a performance enhancer.
Sequential benchmarks do look wonderful, but the real world does not seem to deliver the indicated performance benefits for most
desktop users. The reason is, that sequential benchmarks are coded for maximum overlapped I/O rates.
It depends on reading a stripe of data simultaneously from each raid-0 member, and that is rarely what we do.
The OS does mostly small random reads and writes, so raid-0 is of little use there.
In fact, if your block of data were to be spanned on two drives, random times would be greater.
There are some apps that will benefit. They are characterized by reading large files in a sequential overlapped manner.

Here is a older study using ssd devices in raid-0.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

And a newer report:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-950-pro-256gb-raid-report,4449-4.html

Spoiler... no benefit at all.


The ONLY value of having two 2tb ssd devices running in raid-0 is that you have a single 4tb space to manage.

Offset against that will be generally a lessened performance and increased risk of failure, either if one drive fails or the motherboard raid driver fails.

I would revert to a simple two device setup if you can.
 
Mar 4, 2023
4
0
10
Basing my concerns on seeing that Jayztwocents video headline about Samsung EVO Plus drives going bad and thought to myself: I have three Samsung drives in my system I built a year or so ago. Further internet searching made me feel like it was worth at least checking the firmware -- and that's when the RAID configuration stopped me.
So nothing is seemingly wrong with the system; I was just looking to check.
The RAID thing was certainly a pain... I did it because I thought it was faster and because I liked the simplicity of two overall drives: (2 2TB drives in RAID for a big fast "C" drive -- and then another 4TB SSD for storage).
Sounds like the consensus is that I wasted my time and sanity on that project?
 
Last edited:

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
my 2TB 970 EVO PLUS drives running in a RAID 0 configuration
Why the RAID 0?

Sounds like the consensus is that I wasted my time and sanity on that project?
Pretty much, yes.

SSD + RAID 0....the benchmarks look awesome.
Actual user facing benefit, not so much.

Having a single large C drive?
Windows and software has gotten MUCH better at allowing management of multiple drives.

And RAID 0, at its core, was never ever meant to be the OS drive. No matter what physical drive types, HDD or SSD,
 

DSzymborski

Titan
Moderator
Basing my concerns on seeing that Jayztwocents video headline about Samsung EVO Plus drives going bad and thought to myself: I have three Samsung drives in my system I built a year or so ago. Further internet searching made me feel like it was worth at least checking the firmware -- and that's when the RAID configuration stopped me.
So nothing is seemingly wrong with the system; I was just looking to check.
The RAID thing was certainly a pain... I did it because I thought it was faster and because I liked the simplicity of two overall drives: one for use and one for storage.
I did the RAID thing thinking it would be simpler to have just the two drives in my system (2 2TB drives in RAID for a big fast "C" drive -- and then another 4TB SSD for storage).
Sounds like the consensus is that I wasted my time and sanity on that project?

Generally speaking, it's something you only see in benchmarks (and placebo effect). The big gains are in large sequential files, and that's not the normal use environment for most users. It basically just adds complexity and headaches with no real gain. There's nothing wrong with two drives simply being two drives. I tend to recommend the simplest solution that gets the job done.

Luckily, in your case, there's no harm done since you have a separate storage drive. The really unfortunate cases have people thinking RAID is a backup solution and they end up losing all their files and didn't have a real backup. We get that a lot.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
RAID 0 + SSD vs Not RAID is like comparing 2 cars.

Car A has a published benchmark top speed of 150mph
Car B has a published benchmark top speed of 175mph.

All the other performance aspects are basically identical.
0-60mph
0-100mph
40-70mph
All within 0.1-0.2 sec (Car A is actually 'faster' in the 40-70mph test)

Car B is more expensive, both in price and insurance.

Someone stuck in the RAID 0 mindset would obviously point to Car B as being 'better'.
To which I'd ask..."OK, when was the last time you were at the track to see that?"
 
Mar 4, 2023
4
0
10
Ok, thanks for the information. (And the car analogy is helpful ;)
I hadn't considered a reformat when I posted the question...
"Le sigh"
Oh well. I'll reformat and reinstall and hopefully all the drives will check out.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Oh well. I'll reformat and reinstall and hopefully all the drives will check out.
Do this full reinstall with only one drive connected.
 
Mar 4, 2023
4
0
10
Do this full reinstall with only one drive connected.
Ok (y)