[SOLVED] RAID with Pcie x4 and Pcie x2 M2 NVME SSDs

[Rhinoface]

This is my first time building a desktop, and I wanted to go more or less all out, while still not costing an enormous amount (relatively speaking). I wanted to have 2 NVME RAID 0 SSDs as well as hard drive storage, but noticed I'm having a hard time finding a motherboard with two M.2 slots that're PCIe x4, most are one x4 and one x2.

Does this eliminate the possibility of RAID at all, or even at least the point of it?

Here's what I had I mind so far: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/rmYX9J

I have two more questions as well: Would the stock i9 cooler be acceptable, seeing as how my CPU isn't overclockable.

What is a good WiFi card, preferably PCIe ( i think..)

 

[USAFRet]

On multiple levels, that negates the NVMe RAID 0 thing.
It would only run at the speed of the slowest.

And ultimately, NVMe SSD + RAID 0 (on any motherboard) is pretty useless. It does NOT provide any user facing benefit beyond bragging rights.

 

[Rhinoface]

On multiple levels, that negates the NVMe RAID 0 thing.
It would only run at the speed of the slowest.

And ultimately, NVMe SSD + RAID 0 (on any motherboard) is pretty useless. It does NOT provide any user facing benefit beyond bragging rights.

I see, would it still be bad to just have two SSDs non RAID in those slots, one will just be slower, but faster than SATA I presume? I only wanted RAID because my old laptop had it

 

[USAFRet]

Multiple drives, SSD, SATA, NVme or otherwise, is absolutely no issue (see my parts list below).

A C and D (and F, G, H, I) drive letter, not an issue.
Windows and applications have gotten really good about allowing and managing multiple drives.

 

[prophet51]

pcie 3.0 2x is still much faster compared to sata 3. 2000 vs 550mb/s and pcie has lower latency.

 

[sub3marathonman]

On multiple levels, that negates the NVMe RAID 0 thing.
It would only run at the speed of the slowest.

And ultimately, NVMe SSD + RAID 0 (on any motherboard) is pretty useless. It does NOT provide any user facing benefit beyond bragging rights.

pcie 3.0 2x is still much faster compared to sata 3. 2000 vs 550mb/s and pcie has lower latency.

OK, I'm not an expert, but I think I understand USAFRet's answer, it negates RAID 0 because you've cut one drive's speed in half, but then combined two drives to equal the speed of the first one on its own! And you've lost the storage capacity of one drive too, so you might as well get twice the capacity in the fast x4 ssd even at a slight price premium. It might even be less as it seems a larger ssd is less than two smaller ssds.

But thinking about further as prophet51 stated, it is still much, much faster than SATA III.

So for a RAID1 would the same logic USAFRet stated apply? What if a PCIe x4 ssd was on sale, and additionally you weren't hugely concerned about speed as in a RAID0? You'd still be far, far ahead of a RAID1 SATA III setup I would think, even "wasting" a bit of the x4 ssd's potential speed.

 

[USAFRet]

RAID 1 is a mirror. You have only the actual space of the smallest, and the speed of the slowest.
And a RAID 1 is only to protect against a (rare) physical drive fail. It does nothing for the far more common forms of data loss.
And, it generally runs slower, even with 2 identical drives.
Here, we have an x4 and x2. It will again run only at the speed of the slowest.


Bottom line...RAID is generally of little use in the consumer space. Unless you have a dedicated system for it, and a specific use.
For instance, I currently have a RAID 5 in my NAS box. And that is primarily for experimentation.
I have a stack of SSD's in my main system, and no way I would do any RAID with those. It serves little purpose.


RAID 0 with NVMe SSD's? You'll see zero user facing benefit. Almost nothing you do will be "faster".
What you WILL get is bragging rights for your clueless friends, and increased fail potential.

Just....don't.

 

[sub3marathonman]

Much appreciated USAFRet!