Performance: Two separate drives vs RAID0

[varesa]

I just got my first SSD, and I am thinking of putting two HDDs for the "big storage".

Now I'm wondering if I should RAID 0 the hard drives, or have them separately, like programs on one, and other stuff, like documents and work (videos, 3d work, etc.) on the second one.

I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on:
- Which setup might better overall performance
- Maybe ease of use? Obviously on the daily perspective the RAID 0 would win this one.

 

[Cool1Net6]

First, how important is the data on this "big storage" drive(s)?

Remember, RAID 0 stripes your data across both drives. This means if one drive fails, both drives lose data. I would only run a RAID 0 if the data on the array is backed up somewhere else.

Second, which drives are these? What are there sizes and are they the same rotational speed? (7200RPM vs 5900RPM, etc)

The RAID 0 will outperform two individual drives. The ease of setting up a RAID 0 isn't difficult, but as easy as RAID 0 is, two separate drives requires even less work.

 

[GotNoRice]

Segregating your data isn't going to offer you much benefits unless you are actually simultaneously accessing both drives for their respective purposes. Very few people actually have usage scenarios like this, but there can be big advantages to using independent drives as each drive isn't burdened by tasks from the other. With Raid-0, the read heads on both drives are still performing one task at a time, and will become exponentially slower as you increase the load on the drive, just like wit all mechanical drives.

Raid:0 with something like SSD caching on top would be ideal, but even without, Raid:0 would still almost certainly be better for most purposes.