How To RAID-0 on AMD's AM5 Platform

[Endre]

Hello!


After being for 2 decades on Intel platforms, I've recently switched to AMD.


<MY PC BUILD>
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X.
Motherboard: ASRock X670E Taichi.
Storage: 3x Samsung 970 PRO 1TB (in RAID-0).


<GENERAL OPINIONS ONLINE>
From as long as I can remember, people said that RAID-0, and RAID in general, sucks on AMD.


<MY EXPERIENCE>
1. I've created a bootable Windows 11 USB flash drive, on which I've also added the RAID drivers for my motherboard, which need to be installed at setup.
2. I've enabled RAID & created a RAID-0 array in the BIOS.
3. I've installed Windows 11 (at setup I've loaded & installed the RAID drivers. Then I've created partitions).
4. I've finished installing Windows.


<MY CONCLUSIONS>
RAID-0 works flawlessly on AMD!
The scores in benchmarking apps are great!
The system feels snappy.


<DOWNSIDES>
None, that I know of.


<NOTE 1>
Later on, everytime you'll re-install Windows clean, you'll have to, also, load those RAID drivers at setup, in order to see your previously created partitions.


<NOTE 2>
If you reset the CMOS, or if you update the BIOS, the RAID array will become unusable and you'll boot into the BIOS menu!
But, don't panic!
If you'll re-enable RAID in the BIOS, you'll be able to boot normally into Windows, as your RAID array will become usable again.


<NOTE 3>
Always backup your personal data on a separate storage drive too!


PS: I hope this helps someone...

 

[geofelt]

What do you use this pc for?

If you primarily run sequential benchmarks of large blocks , then perhaps raid-0 is good.

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.

 

[USAFRet]

From as long as I can remember, people said that RAID-0, and RAID in general, sucks on AMD.

"From as long as I can remember, people said that RAID-0, and RAID in general, sucks.

FTFY

 

[boju]

Raid helped quicken slow hdds, it's a waste of effort for ssds.

 

[Misgar]

<DOWNSIDES>
None, that I know of.

How about if one drive in a RAID0 (bootable?) array fails, the whole drive stops working? No doubt you've got an image of the array to restore in such an eventuality, so perhaps it doesn't really matter.

I've seen benchmarks of over 100,000Mbytes/second from someone on another forum with eight Crucial T705 GEN5 M.2 SSDs in RAID0, but I have to ask if a (bootable) RAID0 SSD array provides any tangible difference in most peoples' apps.

Storage: 3x Samsung 970 PRO 1TB (in RAID-0).

What are you running that benefits from setting up RAID0 on three SSDs, or is it just a proof of concept?

 

[Endre]

What do you use this pc for?

If you primarily run sequential benchmarks of large blocks , then perhaps raid-0 is good.

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.

Hello!

I am using my PC for music production.
I am using large sound libraries and high quality sounds (24-bit).
RAID-0 helps a lot in such cases.

 

[Endre]

"From as long as I can remember, people said that RAID-0, and RAID in general, sucks.

FTFY

Hello!

I respect your opinion if it's from your own experience.

In my case, going from a non-RAID setup to a RAID-0 setup resulted in a tangible speed advantage.

 

[Endre]

How about if one drive in a RAID0 (bootable?) array fails, the whole drive stops working? No doubt you've got an image of the array to restore in such an eventuality, so perhaps it doesn't really matter.

I've seen benchmarks of over 100,000Mbytes/second from someone on another forum with eight Crucial T705 GEN5 M.2 SSDs in RAID0, but I have to ask if a (bootable) RAID0 SSD array provides any tangible difference in most peoples' apps.


What are you running that benefits from setting up RAID0 on three SSDs, or is it just a proof of concept?

Hello!

The benefits are, obviously, in speed differences, especially in sequential reads & writes.

Also, you can achieve a setup with fewer, but larger partitions.

Also, the DRAM cache on those SSDs work as a combined pool (in my case: 3x 1GB LPDDR3).

In my case (I previously had those 3 SSDs in a non-RAID configuration), since creating the RAID array, the system became more responsive, more snappy.

Losing your data because of a failed drive is true even if you only have a single drive.
So, backups are a must!

Another thing is that 3 PCIe 3.0 drives in RAID-0 will run cooler than a single PCIe 5.0 drive.

 

[Misgar]

The benefits are, obviously, in speed differences, especially in sequential reads & writes.

Yes, I can see the benefits of RAID0 for audio work with higher speeds and (hopefully) lower latency. There are times when taking a very slight risk of array failure is more than justified.

It's often difficult to tell from the initial posting that some peoples' needs far outweigh any potential disadvantages of running RAID0.