[SOLVED] M.2 in Raid0 and Partition

[rt_lobo]

Hi, I have a question about SSDs Nvme M.2 in RAID 0. Supposing that the SSD with capacity 512gb and the read-write of 3000mb/s-2000mb/s and work with 3 SSDs in RAID0, in the theory we can have the read/write in 9000mb/s - 6000mb/s, ok?
If I partitioning the RAID0 in 3 drives (C, D and E for example) Will I have the 3 drivers with 512gb with read-write in 9000/6000?!
Thanks a lot!
(Sorry by my English 😉 )

 

[Barty1884]

Not strictly double, but certainly a solid boost - in theory.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2365767/feed-your-greed-for-speed-by-installing-ssds-in-raid-0.html

However, outside of benchmarks, the actual real-world difference is negligible at best.

 

[prophet51]

Hi, I have a question about SSDs Nvme M.2 in RAID 0. Supposing that the SSD with capacity 512gb and the read-write of 3000mb/s-2000mb/s and work with 3 SSDs in RAID0, in the theory we can have the read/write in 9000mb/s - 6000mb/s, ok?
If I partitioning the RAID0 in 3 drives (C, D and E for example) Will I have the 3 drivers with 512gb with read-write in 9000/6000?!
Thanks a lot!
(Sorry by my English 😉 )

Need 3 seperate 4x pcie lanes for that speed, and it will be closer to 2x the sequential speed than 3x. Also most ssd raid 0 I've seen is gimped for 1Q1T reads 32k and below - slower than a single ssd. It would most likely be slower/same as a single ssd for most tasks besides sequential file transfers.

 

[rt_lobo]

Need 3 seperate 4x pcie lanes for that speed, and it will be closer to 2x the sequential speed than 3x. Also most ssd raid 0 I've seen is gimped for 1Q1T reads 32k and below - slower than a single ssd. It would most likely be slower/same as a single ssd for most tasks besides sequential file transfers.

You are right. i believe in parts!

We have two scenarios..... With Intel Processor and AMD Processor.

I could see that if you are working with Intel processor and SSDs SATA ( ~500mb/s for read/write), RAID 0 works fine and really increase the speed. But if you are working with the SSD NVME with high speed (for example Samsung 970 EVO) we have no increase of speed, only expand the size of drive.... 1,5TB in case of 3x512gb.

Now, if you are working with AMD processor, the motherboard and AMD processor can process and you can have for example, using 3 x Samsung EVO970 in RAID 0 to have a speed around ~9000mb/s of read. But i'm not totally right about this. I need to search and learn more about the difference between Intel and AMD for RAID 0

Thanks a lot!

 

[popatim]

On current intel systems, You might see a performance boost if you could connect all 3 to the CPU. But if you cannot then you would connect thru the PCH lanes (chipset) and run into the bandwidth limit of the bus that connect the PCH to the CPU. You'll see about 3800MB/s.

So you have to be willing to give up your CPU connected PCIE lanes, normally this is your GPU slot, to NVME drives to get around the PCH/CPU limit to see any speeds above what a single fast NVME drive can do.

I have no idea how the new AMD motherboards with PCIE v4 would perform in this scenario.

 

[USAFRet]

3x NVMe drives will absolutely not give you 3x the read/write performance. Not even in benchmarks.
In actual user facing performance, I'd be surprised if you saw any difference vs a single drive.

 

[prophet51]

You are right. i believe in parts!

We have two scenarios..... With Intel Processor and AMD Processor.

I could see that if you are working with Intel processor and SSDs SATA ( ~500mb/s for read/write), RAID 0 works fine and really increase the speed. But if you are working with the SSD NVME with high speed (for example Samsung 970 EVO) we have no increase of speed, only expand the size of drive.... 1,5TB in case of 3x512gb.

Now, if you are working with AMD processor, the motherboard and AMD processor can process and you can have for example, using 3 x Samsung EVO970 in RAID 0 to have a speed around ~9000mb/s of read. But i'm not totally right about this. I need to search and learn more about the difference between Intel and AMD for RAID 0

Thanks a lot!

I'm using a 2600 Ryzen and the chipset Raid 0 for SSD's is horrendous(I lost 30% 1Q1T4k read speed). It's not just raid 0 running any SSD through the raid controller seems to cripple it's performance at least on my mobo.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Why on earth would you even want to do this?

 

[rt_lobo]

Why on earth would you even want to do this?

😆I work with big big big big size of photography, so for me the speed for open, save and close is very important. Today I have a Samsung 970 Evo and I very satisfied. However I had seen some videos on YouTube about RAID 0 with this “possibility”.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Anyone doing RAID0 x 3 is probably doing it for the purposes of getting the best benchmark scores, not for any real applications.

But people chasing after the highest storage speeds now have PCIe 4.0 SSDs to play with.

 

[prophet51]

😆I work with big big big big size of photography, so for me the speed for open, save and close is very important. Today I have a Samsung 970 Evo and I very satisfied. However I had seen some videos on YouTube about RAID 0 with this “possibility”.

For that purpose raid 0(windows software raid I mean) is fine but i'd just stick to 2x drives. 3x drives scales much worse than 2x even for sequential reads.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

Raid is next to useless for ssds. Huge waste of time and effort

 

[prophet51]

Raid is next to useless for ssds. Huge waste of time and effort

For this purpose raid 0 is a good solution actually, he's using it purely for sequential performance where raid 0 shines. Probably not that important then for them both to be connected to cpu 4x pcie lanes, or just one and the other through the mobo pcie lane.

 

[popatim]

If he connects thru the PCH then they will be limited to the max speed of the PCH to CPU bus (called the DMI bus) and barely see any improvement over a single 970... The DMI is about the equivalent of x4 pcie3 lanes. 3800mb/s vs 3700 a single 970 can do.
So again, there's little point to raid0, just get one drive that is twice the size.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

exactly. no point.