4x RAID 0 vs M.2

N

NannerBeans

n00b
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
13
Random question. What's faster? 4x RAID 0 ssds or a M.2 ssd? I'm running 4x raid 0 MX100s but my motherboard died and the new motherboard I'm getting has an M.2 slot. Is it worth it to go to M.2?
 
I would say its worth it.

For 2 reasons.

The sata ports have a max speed (between all of them) and the chipset. There is a limit.
Next, raid0 is bad, only one device failure you lose the lot so with your 4 ssd raid0 you have 4x the risk of failure.
 
I would get an nVME M.2 SSD. You're getting quadruple the read/write speeds, but also benefitting from more IOPS and you're not multiplying the failure rate. Note there is a speed difference between different capacities if you decide to go with the Samsung 950 though.
 
Access Latency will also be way better with M.2. It's sometimes more important than raw sequential numbers..
 
Random question. What's faster? 4x RAID 0 ssds or a M.2 ssd? I'm running 4x raid 0 MX100s but my motherboard died and the new motherboard I'm getting has an M.2 slot. Is it worth it to go to M.2?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say what is faster when you did not describe your workload. I mean a single SATA SSD will be faster to boot versus either option.
 
drescherjm said:
It's hard to say what is faster when you did not describe your workload. I mean a single SATA SSD will be faster to boot versus either option.
Click to expand...

This. What do you need it for?

Also RAID 0 also increases your chances of data loss so that has to be considered. In some cases the risk is not an issue but if your data is important RAID 0 is always bad.

I am going to RAID 0 2 1 TB SSDs so I can have fast data so there is reasons for RAID 0 SSDs but you need to jav
 
chrcoluk said:
The sata ports have a max speed (between all of them) and the chipset. There is a limit.
Click to expand...
DMI 2.0 is about PCIe 2.0 x4 i believe, so 2GB/s. I believe newer chipsets of Skylake platform have DMI 3.0 which is about the same as PCIe 3.0 x4 so ~4GB/s.

The chipset SATA ports generally are the best SATA ports you are able to get.
Next, raid0 is bad, only one device failure you lose the lot so with your 4 ssd raid0 you have 4x the risk of failure.
Click to expand...
True, but you guys are forgetting that SSDs internally use RAID0 already. No one says do not get a 512GB SSD instead of 256GB SSD. No one says get a single core CPU instead of quad core CPU. No one says get a car with only one tire instead of four tires.

With a reliable SSD the added risk of using multiple in RAID0 is very low. Besides, generally on an SSD you store less important data such as installed operating system, installed applications, installed games. Truly important data often is on mass storage (HDD).

Additionally, people using RAID0 could be more inclined to take care of proper backups. So in fact, using RAID0 might cause better protection for your data than those who use a single SSD. A single SSD is already a RAID0 of 16 NAND devices, basically. But once you start using host-level RAID0 people complain that RAID is risky. I think that is naive and hypocritical.

And while NVMe products like Samsung 950 512GB get benchmarked often, not everyone knows that the 256GB version has much lower write performance - almost half. This is due to RAID0 of course, since the 256GB utilises less parallellization due to interleaving ('RAID0').

I think multiple cheap SSDs in RAID0 is perfect for low-cost and high performance desktops. The added boot time of FakeRAID bootROM initialisation is one aspect to consider, though. But if you do not mind a few extra seconds boot time, the benefits are there while the price is next to zero. Because a 250GB SSD generally is about half the price of a 500GB SSD. Only the smallest capacity like 60/120 are usually more expensive relative to their capacity (i.e. 120GB is more than half the price of the 250GB version).

Just do not think that because you score 2000MB/s+ in your benchmarks, that the actual realistic benefit is very high. You can maybe 10% real-life benefit over a single standard SATA SSD.
 
Well I know for sure either will be overkill for me as I don't do anything special on my machine. It's just a gaming/school work machine but I do CAD and other engineering programs occasionally. I got these MX100s for super cheap so was debating if it was worth it to grab a m.2 drive since I have the option of doing so now. The possible data loss with RAID doesn't really bother me. I can live with that as all my important stuff is always backed up on Dropbox so a failed drive doesn't set me back too much.

I was mostly wondering what gets faster speeds. I didn't realize that there were nvme m.2 drives so maybe I'll grab one of those but the prices for that seem pretty high. Not sure if I want to spend that much on a drive since I don't really need the additional storage as it is.
 
If you already have them and the performance difference will be extremely minimal, why bother buying something different? Stick with what you have?!
 
_CiPHER_ said:
If you already have them and the performance difference will be extremely minimal, why bother buying something different? Stick with what you have?!
Click to expand...

you know i totally misread that first sentence. I thought he wanted to go 4X RAID 0 but wasn't sure if m.2 was better since new MB would support it.


Now since my tard ass read that correctly...just keep what you got. No reason to side upgrade for more money. things may be snappier but thats it. Not worth the money. Rock out those drives til next with with XPoint :D
 
_CiPHER_ said:
DMI 2.0 is about PCIe 2.0 x4 i believe, so 2GB/s. I believe newer chipsets of Skylake platform have DMI 3.0 which is about the same as PCIe 3.0 x4 so ~4GB/s.

The chipset SATA ports generally are the best SATA ports you are able to get.

True, but you guys are forgetting that SSDs internally use RAID0 already. No one says do not get a 512GB SSD instead of 256GB SSD. No one says get a single core CPU instead of quad core CPU. No one says get a car with only one tire instead of four tires.

With a reliable SSD the added risk of using multiple in RAID0 is very low. Besides, generally on an SSD you store less important data such as installed operating system, installed applications, installed games. Truly important data often is on mass storage (HDD).

Additionally, people using RAID0 could be more inclined to take care of proper backups. So in fact, using RAID0 might cause better protection for your data than those who use a single SSD. A single SSD is already a RAID0 of 16 NAND devices, basically. But once you start using host-level RAID0 people complain that RAID is risky. I think that is naive and hypocritical.

And while NVMe products like Samsung 950 512GB get benchmarked often, not everyone knows that the 256GB version has much lower write performance - almost half. This is due to RAID0 of course, since the 256GB utilises less parallellization due to interleaving ('RAID0').

I think multiple cheap SSDs in RAID0 is perfect for low-cost and high performance desktops. The added boot time of FakeRAID bootROM initialisation is one aspect to consider, though. But if you do not mind a few extra seconds boot time, the benefits are there while the price is next to zero. Because a 250GB SSD generally is about half the price of a 500GB SSD. Only the smallest capacity like 60/120 are usually more expensive relative to their capacity (i.e. 120GB is more than half the price of the 250GB version).

Just do not think that because you score 2000MB/s+ in your benchmarks, that the actual realistic benefit is very high. You can maybe 10% real-life benefit over a single standard SATA SSD.
Click to expand...
Your argument on RAID 0 is invalid. Regardless of the internal RAID of the SSD, having 4 drives in RAID 0 is still 4 times the likelihood of a failure compared to 1 drive. Also in non-shock environments, aka a desktop or server, SSDs have about the same failure rate as HDDs. Also having RAID doesn't have any indication to someone backing up their data. If you don't care about your data, run RAID 0. If you care, either don't run RAID 0 or have regular backups.
 
Regardless what drive you run, if you are worried about crashes, back up your data. I think that's the best advice yet.
 
[21CW]killerofall;1041961574 said:
Your argument on RAID 0 is invalid. Regardless of the internal RAID of the SSD, having 4 drives in RAID 0 is still 4 times the likelihood of a failure compared to 1 drive. Also in non-shock environments, aka a desktop or server, SSDs have about the same failure rate as HDDs. Also having RAID doesn't have any indication to someone backing up their data. If you don't care about your data, run RAID 0. If you care, either don't run RAID 0 or have regular backups.
Click to expand...

his point was a valid one. I don't run raid 0 and I don't keep a solid back up system...working on it but I am in no hurry. If I had RAID 0 I would ensure I had a solid back up plan now and not tomorrow. His point is valid because RAID 0 adds more ris to something that already has risks and kinda lights a fire under your butt to get things into gear.


You should have a back up plan no matter what but when people do things that are risky they tend to actually get around to them sooner then later.

His point is valid because a single chip vs 16 chips makes it more likely to die same with 4x 16 chips makes it even more likely to die, It was a valid point.
 
SSD RAID0 is a perfectly fine solution. You can get lots of storage space to go along with the high sequential speeds.

Depending on your work, you might not even need to think about backups. A lot of people I see talking about how a 950 Pro would benefit them are just using the drive as temporary scratch space for media they are working on at the moment.
 
How much snappier can things get. M2 is technically better, 4k writes and all, but with games your load times are already low with any SSD and your CPU decompression rate begins to become the bottleneck... in my experience. Plus OP doesn't do anything that really needs past one SSD.

I used to do R0 when I was younger. Now I just use single SSDs of the 1TB variety. I honestly can't tell the difference. It would be hard not to get a M2 if doing a fresh build and prices were similar...
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
How much snappier can things get. M2 is technically better, 4k writes and all, but with games your load times are already low with any SSD and your CPU decompression rate begins to become the bottleneck... in my experience. Plus OP doesn't do anything that really needs past one SSD.

I used to do R0 when I was younger. Now I just use single SSDs of the 1TB variety. I honestly can't tell the difference. It would be hard not to get a M2 if doing a fresh build and prices were similar...
Click to expand...

Snappieness was inregards to latency. I have had a chance to really look into it to see the raw number difference but its part of the quest to instant reponse. T least thats my position

Sorry 4 crap reply on phone
 
You can get four 240GB drives for less than the price of a 512GB 950 Pro. In RAID0 the writes will be split up, so write endurance will be great.
 
I'm currently using a M.2 NVMe SM951 and come from using 2x SSD's RAID0. I never had the chance to test 4x SSD's RAID0. I would say the feel of using the SM951 is a negligible improvement over the 2x SSD's in RAID0. I would say the one thing that I do enjoy of the M.2 drive over the 2x RAID0 is that I no longer have any SATA cables in the rig and things are a lot cleaner. But if cost is a factor for you then stick with your MX100's in RAID0. You will not notice a huge difference if you were to go with a 950 Pro.
 
Coming from 2x Samsung 840 pro in Raid 0 to an intel PCI-e 750 SSD it's well worth it and less hassle compared to raid. Only need to consider the shared pci-e lane in case you plan on going quad sli. The RVE in my case will disable M2 if the bottom pci-e lane is occupied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top