Hello /g/,
My laptop (MSI gs60) came with 2 SSDs in raid 0 and a rotating platter drive for storage.
Am I correct in saying that having 2 SSDs in raid 0 is basically retarded and just gives me double the chance of having to reinstall windows if one of them dies?
What is the best solution here? Raid 1? Just run them separately? I don't really give a shit about my hard dive access time being .0001ms faster or slower and I don't need the capacity of both drives just for windows and whatever else I have on the SSDs
>>62442640
Is there a reason you'd need raid 1?
>>62442640
Leave them in raid it's not like they're gonna stop working like a hard drive.
>>62442732
One already did a few months ago
>>62442713
Just to save me the trouble of reinstalling. I don't have anything particularly important on it but I use my laptop for work so if it died at the wrong moment (which, as I said, happened to me already a couple of months back) it could be pretty annoying
>>62442773
There are a shitload of variables there like how old the ssd was, the brand, how you were using it. Just saying "they're all gonna fail because of this one experience" is like saying "every drive will fail after a month because I once bought a seagate".
>>62442640
its retarded in so many ways. it's just a meme
you neither have the network performance nor the application that would benefit from write performance for ssd raid0.
raid 0 is technically not a raid as the acronym itself says "redundancy of independent disks". raid 0 is not redundant
>>62442864
Well, it was the same age as the other one (about 2 years), the same brand as the other one (Toshiba), and was being used in exactly the same way (not very intensively) as they were in raid 0... So it's not THAT unreasonable.
Anyway the point is I have 2 hard drives which I don't need the capacity of so I figure I might as well get some potential benefit from them
>>62442906
If it's got you real paranoid, I'd just not put them in raid and use them individually. One as a main, other as a backup. Hopefully they won't die on you. Could install like a 6tb hard drive in there as a third backup and storage drive if your work is very critical
>>62442941
It's not really the actual files I need, I just need to have a functioning computer, and I don't have another one
Now that I think about it I might just pick up a second hand netbook or something to cure my paranoia
>>62442640
>Am I correct in saying that having 2 SSDs in raid 0 is basically retarded and just gives me double the chance of having to reinstall windows if one of them dies?
yes.
>What is the best solution here? Raid 1?
yes.
On further reflection I think I'll just install windows on both of them, boot from one, and just have the other as a backup. Less messing around than raid (and less hard drive use). Thanks for the replies
>>62442640
Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont believe it doubles the chance of failure, it multiplies it.
Like if you roll one dice, and it lands on "six" that is a drive failure. 1/6 chance
After 3 rolls your failure rate is 50%
But if you roll two dices at a time, then...
After 3 rolls your chance of failure is 75% (50% from the first dice, then 50% from the other dice).
This is not considering MTBF.
>>62443210
You are correct
>>62442640
Raid 1 is the safest, but I wouldn't use it on a laptop. I'd rather backup my shit on actual hard drives/cloud, physically separated from the laptop (what if someone steals your laptop, will you lose all data?) and disable RAID for double the storage.
SSD RAID on laptop is just overkill.