RAID0 SSD's vs. PCIe SSD

>>58074869
Do the latter, less parts to go wrong and the limit for the sata interface is 1.6bps IIRC, maybe 1.2 so PCIE is the way to go.

>>58074869
They are both about the same price range, the raid 0 (if 4 drives and up) is just a bit better performing, but less secure as if any of the drives go out the whole thing is fucked.

>>58075102
http://www.nag.co.za/2014/09/16/a-note-on-intels-lingering-dmi-bottleneck-and-storage/

>>58074869
There is no real advantage of PCI-e SSDs, except when they come with NVMe, however your mainboard has to have support for that.

>>58075169
>bottleneck
Into the trash etc

>>58074869
>RAID0
>any year

Do yourself a favour and DON'T.

>>58075102
At my preferred retailer PCIe SSD's are about 3-4 times the price of SATA ones for the same storage. Maybe it's a local thing

>>58075198
Any reason not to, besides the increased risk? I was planning to have OS and programs with a long load time on the RAID0 array and a pair of HDD's in RAID1 with important data and such

>>58075237
The risk is a good enough reason as it's too high. No redundancy, no parity, one drive failure could mean losing ALL of your data.

SSDs with SATA3 are (should be) fast enough for OS loading (which you usually do one time a day, maybe 2-3 on a bad day), don't expect windows/gnu+loonix to boot as fast as templeOS.

>>58074869
Wtf do you do that you need a SSD RAID?
If you rly need that shit go for RAID10.

>>58075284
A single drive has no redundancy or parity either and one failure could mean losing ALL of your data.

>>58077326
You increase the risk of failure by adding another drive though.