raid 0 for games

[cheiften98]

so i wanna get 2 2tb hdd's and run them in raid so its a lot faster and mass storage for cheaper than an ssd.
i know if one drive fails then i lose the data but its only for games.
is it worth it?
thanks

[Jamebonds1]

I wouldn't recommend 0 raid since it is high failure rate. SSD on 0 raid would be good. Ever if you want to using it for game, it is okay since you can redownload in event of replacing failed hard drive. Picture, music from LP or script can't. I would only recommend 10 raid internal.

[cheiften98]

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

I wouldn't recommend 0 raid since it is high failure rate. SSD on 0 raid would be good. Ever if you want to using it for game, it is okay since you can redownload in event of replacing failed hard drive. Picture, music from LP or script can't. I would only recommend 10 raid internal.

why does raid 0 have a high faliure rate? if 1 drives fails i lose the data. but thats the same if te 1 4tb drive fails. there is just 2 fail points.

[Monk]

tacoshy の投稿を引用：

For RAID you want drives that support RAID better like the WD GOLD which is superior to WD Black for mostly the same or less then the WD Black.

I've read that golds are noticeably louder than blacks, at about the same speed but cheaper as they are designed more for server rack use than actual tower use, though without having both in a matching capacity I can't test it.

Edit.

Just done some more research, seems what I read previously is wrong about noise, main difference seems to be that the gold's being designed for raid use in servers has its firmware optimised for that, which can apparantly lead to some potential loss of / corrupted data that the raid would usually fix.

As the gold is listed as a faster drive, but is designed for enterprise use, I'd be interested to see how it's actually speed compares to a black for gaming / media which the gold isn't designed for but the black is.

I need a new 4TB drive so guess I'll try a gold next time, seeing as I can no way afford / justify any more large nvme or SSD storage heh.

[tacoshy]

I have seen a WD Gold 10TB in seq read (copying) hitting a copy rate to a SSD of 270-280MB/s. Lower capacity still reached speed if ~220-250MB/s.

Overall I thought they are more silent while they also where most of the time cheaper and offers always 128MB cache instead of 64MB in the lower capacities.

One of the main advantages however is the 5 year warranty and premium 24/7 customer support?

[Monk]

Yeah, got to say, not sure quite why they still do the black, though I do wonder what the firmware differences actually are.

[Jamebonds1]

cheiften98 の投稿を引用：

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

I wouldn't recommend 0 raid since it is high failure rate. SSD on 0 raid would be good. Ever if you want to using it for game, it is okay since you can redownload in event of replacing failed hard drive. Picture, music from LP or script can't. I would only recommend 10 raid internal.

why does raid 0 have a high faliure rate? if 1 drives fails i lose the data. but thats the same if te 1 4tb drive fails. there is just 2 fail points.

Yes, you can lose all data if one hard drive failing because 0 Raid don't have fault tolerance. It is high failure rate since it is much risk in loss data than other RAID class. In company I working for, we have high-bandwidth data transmission that can failing easily than home/small business computer if not taken well care. This is not IT in high school job, more like bigger responsible.

[tacoshy]

oh overreacting... Large companies would use RAID-10 over RAID-0 for Redundancy.

Beside that a normal consumer will have a hard time to ruin an array. To many use it with no issue.

[cheiften98]

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

cheiften98 の投稿を引用：

why does raid 0 have a high faliure rate? if 1 drives fails i lose the data. but thats the same if te 1 4tb drive fails. there is just 2 fail points.

Yes, you can lose all data if one hard drive failing because 0 Raid don't have fault tolerance. It is high failure rate since it is much risk in loss data than other RAID class. In company I working for, we have high-bandwidth data transmission that can failing easily than home/small business computer if not taken well care. This is not IT in high school job, more like bigger responsible.

i understood it if 1 drive has a 1% faliure rate int he first 2 years it would inscrease by 100% per drive. so it would be 2% for 2 drives.

[Jamebonds1]

tacoshy の投稿を引用：

oh overreacting... Large companies would use RAID-10 over RAID-0 for Redundancy.

Beside that a normal consumer will have a hard time to ruin an array. To many use it with no issue.

I never said what type of RAID large companies using.

cheiften98 の投稿を引用：

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

Yes, you can lose all data if one hard drive failing because 0 Raid don't have fault tolerance. It is high failure rate since it is much risk in loss data than other RAID class. In company I working for, we have high-bandwidth data transmission that can failing easily than home/small business computer if not taken well care. This is not IT in high school job, more like bigger responsible.

i understood it if 1 drive has a 1% faliure rate int he first 2 years it would inscrease by 100% per drive. so it would be 2% for 2 drives.

It has no redundancy and fault tolerance. My guess would be about 3 to 10% chance of failure RAID 0 if it is not take well care. It is 50-50 of loss all data. So, I'm just not recommend it for store picture, video, music, etc. You might can keep RAID 0 hard drive longer lasting if it is well care.

[cheiften98]

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

tacoshy の投稿を引用：

oh overreacting... Large companies would use RAID-10 over RAID-0 for Redundancy.

Beside that a normal consumer will have a hard time to ruin an array. To many use it with no issue.

I never said what type of RAID large companies using.

cheiften98 の投稿を引用：

i understood it if 1 drive has a 1% faliure rate int he first 2 years it would inscrease by 100% per drive. so it would be 2% for 2 drives.

It has no redundancy and fault tolerance. My guess would be about 3 to 10% chance of failure RAID 0 if it is not take well care. It is 50-50 of loss all data. So, I'm just not recommend it for store picture, video, music, etc. You might can keep RAID 0 hard drive longer lasting if it is well care.

i dont think its like that. it has a higer faliure rate because there is more drives instead of one..

[tacoshy]

That's what I meant with overreacting. WD has nice tables for different drives especially with WD Gold the failure rate is way below 1% even without maintenance.


Large companies need maintenance because they run more then just 2 drives in RAID... More like hundreds.

[Jamebonds1]

It is simply. If one hard drive fail on RAID 0, can it be recover? No. That is why it is high failure rate. I had many WD and they failing in one years. Ever if I take well care of them.

[tacoshy]

Yes and the chance of one HDD failing is far below 1% and RAID not going to expend that even above 1%... Especially when in 2 drive RAID.

WD Gold even is made as an reprise RAID to lower the failure Rate into nearly non existing.

[Monk]

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

It is simply. If one hard drive fail on RAID 0, can it be recover? No. That is why it is high failure rate. I had many WD and they failing in one years. Ever if I take well care of them.

I fear you are doing something wrong, in 25 years I think I've only had one HDD actually die on me, it's an incredibly low failure rate, especially for normal home users, hell the cheap HDD I have in my htpc has been in use pretty much non stop for probably 8 years-ish? Lol

[Jamebonds1]

Monk の投稿を引用：

Jamebonds1 の投稿を引用：

It is simply. If one hard drive fail on RAID 0, can it be recover? No. That is why it is high failure rate. I had many WD and they failing in one years. Ever if I take well care of them.

I fear you are doing something wrong, in 25 years I think I've only had one HDD actually die on me, it's an incredibly low failure rate, especially for normal home users, hell the cheap HDD I have in my htpc has been in use pretty much non stop for probably 8 years-ish? Lol

I don't doing something wrong, WD just died on me in one year. There is no ESD, proper humidity, good power supply, good motherboard, etc. So I don't know why it does that. Which is why I give up on WD and switched to SeaGate hard drive. It does not fail in one year like WD do.