So? It’s still extremely unlikely, and if it happens, you get a new drive, reinstall your OS, and call it a day. That’s what normal people do. It’s called life, you should try it.
It’s double the storage space for the same money. a 100% gain. That kind of matters for the normal consumer, that has a life.
So we go from one in two hundred thousand chance to one in one hundred thousand chance it will happen within a decade to the normal consumer that uses their computer. It makes NO difference.
All your arguments are completely useless for the normal computer user, who Fedora Workstation is meant for.
Nope, you could just mount the additional SSD under /home/user/storage. That has it’s advantages in that you can copy stuff over there, and then reinstall OS on one drive for ex…
For the OS a reinstall is relatively easy.
What if you have 2 TB of data that you want to keep on your 4TB raid 0 array. It is gone.
Better hope your backup is up to date!!
Reliability of hardware has improved tremendously over the years. Failure is still possible.
Backups also cost storage space.
downside is say you have 2x 1TB drives, OS on one, /home on the other.
Most of the unused storage on the OS drive will go unused. You need to leave some spare for the OS. I don’t like that. That’s why i also refuse to partition a SSD, and have to estimate the OS uses say 100 GB and i need to leave another 100GB ‘just in case’ and it never gets used.
So i just run ZFS on root, no partitions, have all the free space on all storage available at all times.
That’s why i personally would just stripe my 2 SSD’s, and create a root dataset and a home dataset. And not worry about no drive maybe failing one day, life is too short for that. (edit: ofcourse backups through incremental zfs send/recv regime, that runs in the background all day long year after year, see zrepl for a new exciting option)
again, spending 2x the money on redundancy for SSD is completely irrational for a consumer. You can use any $2 HDD for backups, especially with a ZFS incremental snapshot regime.
I’m not saying you don’t need backups, i’m saying it’s a waste of money to spend 2x the money on ssd’s for something that may or may not happen during the lifetime of the consumer.
You don’t buy another car to have unused on your yard all your life just incase your main car someday breaks down. You prepare for that day in other ways.
Use cheap storage for backups, and stop worrying about the bomb.
@computersavvy, @unused-hardhat The two of you have exchanged their opinion about RAID0 several times in this topic now. It doesn’t help to repeat them, especially since OP seems to be aware of the risks associated with RAID0. One is free to choose whatever fits use case or preference.
Hi Liviu,
IF I am not mistaken … both Intel Rapid Storage and mdadm actually use the CPU on the machine to do RAID functions. Being the case, either will perform similarly … no speed / performance advantage. Just a quick note on RAID 0 vs RAID 1 vs RAID 10 … on 2 disks RAID 0 has NO redundancy, RAID 1 is mirrored and RAID 10 is a mirrored stripe … with only 2 disks, it’s going to be RAID 0 or RAID 1, not both
Intel RST is not hardware RAID. There’s an Intel driver for Windows, Linux md driver (via mdadm managing the metadata format) and the computer’s firmware so that it can support RAID in the pre-boot environment - therefore even the EFI System partition can be subject to RAID.
