I'm looking for HD recommendations on a RAID0 upgrade.

>>58211205
>3x 2TB Greens in a RAID0
Holy shit that's retarded. Do you not care about your data at all?

>>58211245
>Do you not care about your data at all?
You're not the first person to comment on that. No, I dont care about my data. 90% of it are torrents. TV shows, movies, music, etc. I've been a member of private torrent groups for a long time, and I seed everything.

All other important data, pictures, music, and files are kept on 3 separate backups at all times.

I am not worried about data loss. I only care about performance, and low noise. Just this Monday I was backing up the data to 2 USB 3.0 externals simultaneously, and my RAID read speed was at a constant 200mb/s

>>58211205
The failure rate of 4TB drives is higher than 2TB drives, but not by much. The increase in failure chance that you'll see with 4 drives instead of 2 significantly outweighs that in a RAID0, so go with 2x4TB

>>58211367
>200mb/s
This is a very poor sequential read speed for even a single mechanical HDD

>>58211520
>This is a very poor sequential read speed for even a single mechanical HDD

The HDs are rated at around 100mb/s read/write
Keep in mind I was writing the sames files to two locations on 6 year old hardware. SATA3 via Intel software raid, and first gen USB 3.0 ports to 5400 RPM external Seagates.

Just now I copied a single file from the RAID to my SSD, and it sustained around 330mb/s

>>58211799
>The HDs are rated at around 100mb/s read/write
This is also very poor. Are you confusing megabits with megabytes?

>>58211921
MB/s
sorry

>>58211921
> Are you confusing megabits with megabytes?

not him, but yes, he clearly is

Any particular HDs to recommend?

>HDD RAID 0
What's the point? If you need speed get SSDs instead. You'll spend less and get more of what you want. Of course you'll have less drive space, but it'll be multiple times faster than any RAID0 setup using hard drives.

>>58216225
Also I stopped being a lazy fuck and read more of your post.
Don't bother with RAID0. If you really don't care about your data then make a JBOD or something so you can at least get most of your data back in the event of hardware failure.
If you're going to use RAID use RAID5 or something.

>>58216269
At least recommend that OP get a proper raid card instead of continuing to use soft raid

>>58216457
proper raid cards cost good money.
raid 0 is simple enough that letting the mobo handle it is not a big deal.

Personally I think OP should invest in maybe a NAS or something like that instead.

>using raid

>>58216457
>a proper raid card
Waste of money. "Proper" RAID cards cost a lot. You also need to have backups in case the card fails.
A consumer RAID card has this issue too, but it also uses your CPU for RAID, just like your motherboard's RAID would.
The only sane solution is to use software RAID like madam. You're going to take a performance hit anyway, you might as well make it so you have one less point of failure.

>>58216541
Might as well use ZFS then

>>58216588
ZFS needs a lot of RAM. And is it stable on Linux yet?

>>58216651
It's stable on Linux