Software RAID0 Windows 10

cavedog

cavedog

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
26,957
Reaction score
13,125
Location
PTA
Is anyone using the Storage Spaces feature in windows 10 to combine their drives?
 
RAID0 = data divided amongst disks. Faster read and all space available but no fault tolerance. For 2TB storage you will need 2 disks. @R800 for a 1TB disk = R800/TB

RAID1 = data written on both drives = mirror of data. One disk can fail and all data is available. Can be slower than RAID0 unless controller can mulitplex. For 1TB storage you will need 2 disks. @R800 for a 1TB disk = R1600/TB

RAID10 = RAID1 + RAID 0. Uses 4 disks. Data is divided between 2 drives. Then those drives are also mirrored. Gives speed and fault tolerance (unless both disks of the same strip set die at the same time). Costs the same per TB as RAID1. For 2TB storage you will need 4 disks. @R800 for a 1TB disk = R1600/TB

As a comparison a SSD costs R1200 for 500Gb = R2400/TB but will probably be faster than RAID0.
 
I don't think RAID0 is that big of a deal. The data that would be on these drive won't be that critical and I can keep backups of them by syncing the drive daily to a cloud drive for backup if I wanted.
 
RAID0 for something like a swap file. For no data or applications, otherwise it's going to be tears when they only HDD allowed to fail actually does. Otherwise RAID10, or even RAID50.
 
RAID0 was ok when we mostly used mechanical drives. With SSD's you don't really need a RAID0 setup - maybe a RAID1 for data protection.
 
*cough* ZFS *cough*

If you want speed - SSD's are your friend

If you want redundancy for cheap: FreeNAS + ZFS or for more money go for a Synology and access storage via iSCSI/NFS/etc.
 
Eric said:
No it's not.
That is one of the features of RAID 1, 5, 10, etc.
Increased performance is another feature of some of those (5,10). Raid 0 is purely for performance.
Click to expand...
It's in the name. Redundant array of inexpensive/independent disks. RAID was intended to minimize downtime. RAID0 is asking for headaches (and yes, I've run RAID0, two Samsung 1TBs in a short stroked 150GB array - call me a hypocrite :P )
 
cavedog said:
I don't think RAID0 is that big of a deal. The data that would be on these drive won't be that critical and I can keep backups of them by syncing the drive daily to a cloud drive for backup if I wanted.
Click to expand...
Cloud drive <> backup

But yeah for low value data sometimes a roll of the dice is the correct answer

OCP said:
*cough* ZFS *cough*

If you want speed - SSD's are your friend

If you want redundancy for cheap: FreeNAS + ZFS or for more money go for a Synology and access storage via iSCSI/NFS/etc.
Click to expand...

You'll need that SSDs if you go for ZFS. It's slow AF - like catastrophically slow - under many scenarios that matter like random IO.
 
Eric said:
The original paper argued for the performance improvement over mainframe disks using inexpensive disks in an array, the fact that the name evolved to include the word redundant doesn't change that. In the same way, RAID-0 is still called RAID-0 even though nothing is redundant.
Either way I guess it's not worth an argument over :)
Click to expand...
Weeeeell, the original RAID specs (and what they evolved into) didn't include RAID0. I believe (either what become or was from the start) RAID5 is part of the original specs, but not RAID0. I think one could consider RAID0 to be more along the lines of a JBOD array with the NAME RAID, but not a true RAID spec.

Not worth arguing over, but an interesting discussion none-the-less.
 
Just thought I post this here. I would should have done the before and after tests with No RAID, RAID1 and RAID0 with my 2x 1TB green HDDs :cautious:

2x Samsung 850 EVOs in RAID0
lpT2fkB5uFWABVePX5IQA1aqFVAbqp4q8SUVL7Y9JH8.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X