[SOLVED] Is RAID 0 really that unreliable these days?

[I am bad a usernames]

I know about the risks to be had with RAID 0 and their benefits, but most articles, videos, threads, etc. that I find are from 5+ years ago when things were quite different in the tech world for storage. Also I think most media covering RAID 0 is obligated to talk about it being unreliable, so finding a real answer to my use case has been difficult. I am curious if drive reliability has improved enough to where the unreliability of RAID 0 is sort of a non problem. I am a pretty normal user, MSOffice files, games, some pictures, nothing that is mission critical, and kinda just want to mess around and have some tech fun with RAIDing my setup in a future build. Drives im looking at are 2 Seagate Barracuda 2TB drives ST2000DM008. Thanks for any input

 

[hotaru.hino]

RAID0 is always going to be more unreliable than running a single drive by virtue that if any one of the drives fail, the whole things fails. So you're better off looking to see how storage drive reliability has been doing over the years.

Either way, instead of doing a RAID0 on hard drives, just get an SSD. Much faster than any RAID0 hard drive setup and you don't have the reliability issue.

 

[Eximo]

Unless you really needed a very large volume and you needed a little more performance than a hard drive provides, then maybe it would be worth it. Anything under 2TB, SSD, and there are 4TB SSDs available that aren't too hard on the wallet.

As an enthusiast I've only done RAID 0 once, and it was really out of laziness. 256GB SSDs had finally dropped to under $1/GB, while 500+GB drives were still requiring about 1.5$/GB. So I bought two 256GB drives and stripped them, on SATA II, later transplanted to SATA III. Having 400MB/s was still about 5 times faster than your best hard drive at the time.

Now you can get a 3000+MB/s drive, and RAID 0 doesn't improve that performance much, just not the bandwidth for it.