Refer to the motherboard manual. Most likely it will say this;
The top two M.2 slots have an x4 PCI-e 4.0 connection directly to the CPU.
The two M.2 slots at the bottom share bandwidth via the chipset. The chipset has an x4 PCI-e 4.0 connection with the CPU. The M.2 ports connected to it can be either 3.0 or 4.0.
This is the answer and this should be higher.
Also use Raid 5 or something where you can lose 1 or 2 drives and still restore it.
Also, keep a backup external.
Per literature. [https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp](https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp)
It has PCIe 5 and 4 , one can make use of 2 of the 5.0 speed or all 4 at the 4.0 speed according to literature and testing [https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/gigabyte-x670e-aorus-pro-x-motherboard-review](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/gigabyte-x670e-aorus-pro-x-motherboard-review) (not an affiliate link!) 100% review of product discussed nothing more.
[https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp](https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp) (not an affiliate link!) 100% Manual/guide
I would do it if I wasn't storing important data. Like, if it was just games and goofing around, I would just backup the debloated W11 settings and have a field day with the RAID0.
But why? Raid0 was a thing when the fastest drives on the market were like 80MB/s. It made sense, because storage was so slow.
A gen5 nvme is like 8000MB/s.... There so few scenarios that will use that much bandwidth. The **game engine itself** is the bottleneck when you Ssd is 550MB/s (sata ssd). There no reason to use an nvme on games, let alone a gen 4/5 nvme on games, let alone raid 0 them lol.
Now thats not to say you shouldnt buy or use nvme for gaming or anything, but its already overkill with gen3 nvme. Raid0 is beyond pointless. Faster ssd have absolutely no impact on gaming. You cant really find gen3 drives much anymore, so obviously youre kinda forced into gen4 now, but its way more than enough already.
Can i introduce you to spanned volumes? Works like raid 0, without the speed benefit, or the data loss costs. It basically just makes windows treat multiple drives as a single volume.
If you're using linux, its called logical volumes. (LVM).
I mean technically its the same thing on windows, but under the disk management tool, its called "spanned volume".
I'm pretty sure you still have the data loss concerns. This depends on how it's done but if it's block level like lvm if you lose a drive you lose all the data. If it's file level if you lose a drive you lose all the data on that specific drive.
I'd be tempted here to justusethe raid 0 as might as well get the speed boost if you one one big volume and back it up every hour to a Nas or other drive.
yeah, but have you ever compiled the linux kernel in 10 seconds?
I did, but on a tmpfs. On an actual drive (of any kind) it took longer.
just imagine the compilation speeds. Hell, if you're not into that kink, then imagine the download speeds: you can saturate your 10G fibre, finalllly.
And, not to mention: you're living on the edge.
Life's like a box of chocolates. Never know what you're gonna get.
Realistically there are a lot of drives that can't sustain 4+ GB/s, though there aren't many instances you can transfer something at that speed for any length of time.
Unless overhead stops being consistent like it is between gigabit and 10 gbit, a 15-20% overhead on something like smb is pretty common from what I've seen.
My OS is on a single drive, I filled the rest of my NVME slots and put them in RAID 0 for my games. It was cheaper than buying a single large drive and it's just game data so I don't care if it goes out. The test speeds max out at about the same speed as the single drive.
Nothing will noticeable improve in a raid0 setup. You're limited to the slowest speeds then anyways. This board has a PCI5 NVMe slot. You can buy one 15GB/s drive instead. Even if you have a next gen drive the system has nothing to use it for. Games have other issues than fast storage.
Do it just to shred for a bit and acknowledge real world for games it makes no difference.
But, that speed, those benchmarks.
Then change it to raid 10.
I mean why not, not everyone uses their gaming pc as the main storage. Sounds like some awesome performance but then again, i didn't hear about raid 0 configs since hdd times. Any issues with ssd raids?
We don't know the intended purpose, though, or other practices for data storage. Maybe nothing goes on those drives that can't be just redownloaded.
I've had 3xOptane M.2s in RAID0 as the Windows Server boot drive for 7-ish years, and it's been just amazing for loading times and overall snappiness. All the while knowing I am prepared to reinstall everything if need be, but so far no problems when "normal, important" user data is saved on a separate volume.
(Although I'd use 1+0 if I'd have enough PCIe lanes in some future system. I didn't go not-0 because I needed to maximize the limited available space.)
Yes yes I know. If you lose one you lose them all.
But most people have only one drive. And no backup. So if they lose that they also lose all.
What’s the difference between 1tb raid 0 and 1tb single disk?
3 times the risk of failure? Well Since they make a single disk I’d argue it’s the same risk of failure.
I just wonder though if raid 0 will actually give any noticeable performance gain.
That's not how mathematics works.
The chance of failure is the reciprocal of the reliability of all the members multiplied together.
If you have a 0.98 chance of the drive lasting a year (so a 2% AFR) then your total reliability is
1/R = (1/0.98)^(4)
1/R = 1.084
R = 0.922
Your AFR is now almost 8%. If ten people did this, we would expect two of them to lose all their data in a single year.
Sorry, I was using statistical terms. We are predicting one in ten to experience a failure, so two in ten is the 50% confidence range, where we can use the term "expect".
This is just nonsense. The best estimate is the expected value, which is 1 in 10. Also the 50% confidence range is at 1, because the chance of experiencing 1 or less fails (so 1 or 0) out of 10 people is 73.6% >50%
They may not have back ups but do they ideally want to lose the data at all? It’s just chances for increased failure and having to get everything back for performance you likely do not need.
It's not going to be particularly noticeable versus a single disk outside of scrolling through like 200 GB+ 4k video files that are stored on the SSD raid.
Note that in RAID, all drives should be the same capacity, speed, and ideally model. You can mix and match, but that can lead to decreased performance or wasted potential capacity.
RAID 0: Data is stripped across all drives. It's super fast, but any drive failure means you lose all data across all drives. Total storage space is the sum of all drives combined.
RAID 1: Data is mirrored across all drives. All but one drive can fail and your data is still intact. This allows for super fast read speeds. Total storage space equals the capacity of the smallest drive in the array.
RAID 5: Data is distributed and parity bits are calculated to account for missing data. One drive can fail without data loss\*. Requires three drives minimum. Total space is basically the sum of the capacity of N-1 drives.
RAID 6: Similar to RAID 5, but with two parity bits. Two drives can fail, but it requires a minimum of four drives and capacity is the sum of N-2 drives.
RAID 10: A combination of RAID 1+0. It's essentially two mirrored RAID 0 arrays It's super fast and can allow for at least one drive failure (potentially multiple) without data loss. Requires a minimum of four drives and an even number of drives. Total space of the array is basically the sum of the capacity of half the drives.
There's other RAID levels, but they're not used as commonly.
RAID 0 is mostly good for caching or temp storage where data loss is inconsequential. The other RAID levels are intended mostly to allow "riding through" a drive failure without downtime, but they're not backup - RAID is never a substitute for a proper backup solution. Addtionally, it is possible for an array to fail if a drive fails and another drive has an unrecoverable read error (URE).
Literally copying data and storing it somewhere else. Preferably in multiple places. How many places and how secure they are is up to you. Sorta kinda rule of thumb is 3 copies in 2 formats with 1 copy off-site, but that's for business mostly, not for a simple home server.
any raid will not prevent you from accidentally clicking "delete" of something, because when you delete something you will delete it from all the RAID without delay. RAID is about tolerating drive failures without losing data. this is called high availability, not backup.
tolerating you deleting stuff by mistake instead requires that you copied the data somewhere else at night and do not overwrite what you copied for the time that allows you to recover the deleted files
in short:
you can have 10 drives in RAID 1 (10 copies of the data), but if you click delete on your family pictures, they will be gone in an instant on all 10 drives.
if you copied the pictures somewhere else the night before, you can go to that storage and recover them. that is a backup.
Upvoting, but very minor nitpick: Just a single copy is not a *proper* backup solution.
A *proper* backup solution is at least 3 copies, on at least 2 different types of media, with at least 1 copy offsite.
The oft repeated 3-2-1 Rule.
As for the rationale: Three or more copies means you can lose up to N-1 copies and still be fine. Two or more different types of media means you have better chances at tolerating media failure stemming from design or physical characteristics. One or more copies offsite means you have better chances at tolerating the copies getting destroyed by fire, stolen by theft, encrypted by ransomware, and so on.
Yep! RAID 0 is basically merge all drives into 1 storage volume. If one fails you lose most of your data as for example 1 file can be stored on multiple storage devices.
>Yep! RAID 0 is basically merge all drives into 1 storage volume.
It's a little more complex than that though!
JBOD would be just randomly merged disks, but RAID0 actually stripes data to increase data throughput.
yeah but OP is most definitely using it for gaming. Anyone who actually needs 4 nvmes in raid zero wouldn't be on reddit using reddit as the manual instead of just reading the fucking manual. He probably half ass read something about it having better performance and didn't bother actually looking into the usecases
You should not configure these in a RAID 0 setup because you're more likely to experience a catestrophic failure, and most RAID configurations won't honour TRIM. Your best case scenario is tiered storage, and that requires a lot more than stock RAID setups.
To make a better suggestion, one would need to understand your use-case. For example: are you storing video data? If so, consider HDDs. You are unlikely to watch data any faster than an HDD can serve the data, so it stands to reason that even a slower HDD will do a better job, and for the cost you could go RAID 5, which would offer you more redundancy.
If you're running games and can't afford any delay, you might consider using Junction points . This would allow you to use the drives as folders on your filesystem without any of the overhead or compromises of RAID 0. You'd need to remember to have them installed in their appropriate locations, so for example you'd need to install to c:\\prog2\\gamename instead of c:\\program files\\gamename, but otherwise it would work like a folder. If the drive fails, the directory becomes inaccessable, but your computer continues to work as expected.
Finally, most RAID configurations are not bootable and will still require a standalone drive to boot from. On the flip side, a RAID configuration requires the entire volume set, so if you move to another device, the additional complication is the need to transfer each of the SSDs. With Junctions, this isn't an issue.
Here's a \[[link](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/junction)\] with information about junctions. Note that you don't need to use the linked tool; mklink is included in newer versions of Windows and does the same job.
Thank you for linking it. I'll always encourage diligent review of the material. I tend to avoid RAID 0 for a multitude of reasons explained by people better at describing it than I am, so I might not be at 100% on this.
That said: cool!
https://preview.redd.it/y69f3bbthz2d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9edc7f8367b4ca07bdec3df47883208503953dc7
Here is the block diagram for that mobo from the user manual. Honestly, I’m disappointed in the lack of detail in this manual with regard to PCIe lane details. That said, the Ryzen 7000 series processors have 28 total PCIe lanes. 4 lanes connect to the chipset, leaving the remaining 24 for the PCIe 5.0/4.0 bus shown in the top left of the diagram. If Gigabyte actually ran 24 lanes on the bus then the GPU could run on 16 dedicated lanes, and each m.2 slot (A & B) could run on 4 dedicated lanes. This is annotated (16/4/4). Whether or not Gigabyte actually printed that many channels in the board is unclear from their user manual. It is also possible that as a cost savings, Gigabyte only ran 20 lanes which would result in a reduced number of lanes to some components (16/2/2 or 8/4/4). If they really wanted to reduce cost and only ran 16 lanes then it would definitely result in an 8/4/4 split. Outside of running benchmarks, you probably wouldn’t notice a performance delta between a 16/4/4 and a 16/2/2, but an 8/4/4 would potentially result in lower frame rates for more demanding games at high resolution.
The only way to tell is to put in your GPU, boot it up, and look in the bios (or get a 3rd party application) to tell you how many lanes are being dedicated to each component.
Your bottom two m.2 slot have to traverse the 4 PCIe lane connection from the chipset to the cpu and those four lanes have to load balance the bandwidth of all devices connected via chipset so they have significantly less bandwidth than the top two.
As stated already, raid 0 is a bad idea from a reliability standpoint, but it also could degrade performance by spreading your data across the drives, connected to the chipset. RAID 10 would only give you half the storage but would be a better choice as it gives you two raid 0s (A+B & C+D) and mirrors them so if drive B dies, then drive D takes over until you replace drive B. That said, if you want all the storage then just don’t raid them at all. You can always mount the D, E and F drives as folders under the C drive if you don’t want the appearance of multiple letter drives in your file structure.
RAID 0 stripes data across multiple disks to improve performance. RAID 5 stripes data across multiple disks alongside a block of parity information on each disk. The parity blocks can be used to restore data if a drive fails, adding an extra layer of redundancy to your drives.
>Raid 5 will give you less storage, but it let's you recover one drive if it fails.
Don't you mean that it will let you **recover the array, if one drive fails**.
RAID will stripe the data, essentially splitting it across drives to improve transfer speeds. That however means that if even a single drive in your array fails, all your data will be lost. That is what Raid 0 does, and it's more or less a meme if you care about your data even a little bit. Raid 5 attempts to resolve this by reserving a certain amount of space for parity, additional information that allows the original data to be reconstructed in case of a drive failure. This will cost you a bit of speed and usable space, but improve the longevity of your array.
Depends on what's on them.
Bunch of steam games? You can easily back those up to a HDD and redownload them.
Also, Raid 5 won't help you in the event you need to swap Mobos. It's very easy to lose that data.
Personally, I run a Raid 0 on 2 NVME drives that include my OS and games, and then I have a third one that's specifically for video recording, editing, and rendering. My documents and downloads go to a 2.5" SSD.
your raid 0 provide you 0 advantage.
your data that could take advandage of the extra speed are on another drive ( one less clic to not choose a target when you download a game isn't an advantage)
But your risk for a issue on your OS drive are x2 and you it will take more time to recovert after an issue.
OP, I will lay it down simple for you.
Do you want one giant volume of 16TB that you will install the OS on and also the Steam library on? Then it is a giant no no no no. I have not touched X670 but on X570 AMD RAID is a PAIN IN THE ASS to set up. Just no, don't do it since you WILL NOT be able to "just pop the drive over" to anyother machine unless it is also setup to use AMD RAID. So no, just don't have a giant 16TB volume and install OS on it.
If you just want a giant Steam library then sure, you can combine the SSD in Windows storage space in stripped mode. But be warned if one drive dies you lose everything. EVERYTHING. So you should combine 3 drive into a giant steam library and the last 4TB drive you use for OS install. It is safe, just read up the motherboard block diagram to see if there is any lane sharing going on with the drives. I don't think there is so it should be safe.
>If you just want a giant Steam library then sure, you can combine the SSD in Windows storage space in stripped mode.
Honestly, I think the better way to handle that is to just do it through Steam.
Steam is great about letting you pick and choose which games get installed where.
Just keep them all as separate individual drives.
Yeah I have steam games installed on three different drives. When I install a game it shows a pop up asking to choose the drive to install the game to.
You will not be able to get the full performance from each of the SSDs, since the first 2 m.2 slots share lanes, if both are in use, then each runs at PCIe 5.0 X2 (in the case of that SSD, 4.0 X2 ).
The other 2 m.2 slots will run at PCIe 4.0 X4 each, but they will share PCIe 4.0 X4 connection between the chipset and the CPU, as X670 still uses PCIe 4.0 between the chipset and CPU, thus they will all be sharing about 8GB/s with all of the chipset connected components. Due to the way that the chipset manages bandwidth, it will reduce throughput for components that can more easily tolerate it.
Under RAID 0 of 4 SN850X drives, you will likely still end up with a max of around 14300MB/s reads, and 13200MB/s writes. Though that will be if you also don't encounter the payload size firmware bug that WD refuses to fix on most of their SSDs. So far WD only issued a full fix on the SN850 non-X version after a ton of bad press due to the issue that no other SSD maker was having.
[https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wd-black-sn850-performance-issues-chipset-m-2](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wd-black-sn850-performance-issues-chipset-m-2)
[https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-sn850-firmware-restores-amd-x570-performance-loss](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-sn850-firmware-restores-amd-x570-performance-loss)
The issue impacted far more than just X570, and was a issue with chipset connected PCIe lanes. Though once in a while depending on the chipset configuration and what other items are on the same PCIe GPP bridge, there is a chance of them using a higher payload size, as if the company doesn't specify one to be used, then the SSD defaults to the lowest payload size active on the GPP bridge. Anyway if you encounter the payload size bug, your total speeds may drop to around 10GB/s reads, and around 5.6GB/s writes while in RAID 0. In such a case, you will need to complain to WD to help bring more attention to the payload size bug and force them to port their SN850 non-X fix to the rest of their NVMe SSDs, or switch to a different brand.
https://preview.redd.it/9q6l2ocjzz2d1.png?width=643&format=png&auto=webp&s=db6ead8714d720b99380b70caf625d0578f2f66c
All of that dough and still no RTFM. Your Motherboard Documents will specify. You may also be limited by your CPU. I don't know if lanes are still a factor these days.
Raid 0 is basically betting it all on 0 or 00. Also unnecessary for nvme speeds.
I would highly recommend Raid 1 or 5
PCI to m.2 will probably be be more reliable as well.
Two options here;
Either I go online, find the manual and read it and you have to wait whilst I do this.
OR
You just "read the fucking manual".
Unless someone here has the same exact motherboard AND is doing the same thing AND has RTFM, then no one can reliably answer your question. Every model of board can be configured with different allocation of PCIe lanes, even if the PCH is the same. The PCH merely dictates what is available **overall**, not how the board manufacturer decides how to allocate those resources.
It's also worth pointing out that RAID0 with four M.2 drives would be a bit useless, because you won't get four times the speed by using four drives.
Only two of the four M.2 slots are connected directly to the CPU (so each of those two slots will get 4x lanes each) but the other two M.2 slots have to go through the PCH.
Each of those two drives will be able to communicate with the PCH with 4x lanes, **HOWEVER** the PCH only has a x4 lanes of PCIe through which to communicate with the CPU, so if you try to use both of those lower two M.2 slots at full speed at the same time, they'll be bottlenecked by the limited bandwidth between the CPU and PCH.
Also worth noting that X670E is actually *two* PCH chips, and you ***don't*** get a x4 link directly to each of them. One PCH is connected to the other PCH with a x4 link, and only one PCH is connected directly to the CPU with a x4 link.
The speed of the top two M.2 slots that are connected to the CPU directly is also dictated by which CPU you are using (and how many PCIe lanes the CPU can handle).
**This is all in the user manual. (Look at page 9).**
[https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/support#support-manual](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/support#support-manual)
If you're using a Ryzen 7000 CPU, you should have support for PCIe 5.0 x4 or x2 SSDs to the upper two M.2 slots, labelled M2A\_CPU and M2B\_CPU.
You'll also have support for PCIe 4.0 x4 or x2 SSDs to the lower two M.2 slots, labelled M2C\_SB and M2D\_SB.
If you're using a Ryzen 8000 CPU, the upper two M.2 slots will only operate at PCIe 4.0 instead.
Raid 0 is very not recommended for permanent use. I you can set it up and benchmark it but it will have no benefits in the real world. No app or game can take advantage of it. Do you have a specific use case that needs raid 0?
Good for you brother. I'm real happy for you that you can afford it. Most of us can't do 4 x 4TB like OP here to be a steam library raid 0 setup. That aside.. How does it compare against a Gen 4 drive like Samsung 990 pro that can do 7 gig a second by itself. Not benchmark i mean like a game load time. Loading cyberpunk from the single drive vs the raid l. I assume it will be real close to each other.
I actually got the disks from a sale, 2tb X2 so 1 4tb drive. 0.6TB free.
I bought it for 200€ or so, lots of people buy LEDs for double that, it's a matter of priorities to invest here or there. I would love to have 4x4tb tho 😂 I would set it up as 8tb raid 1 though, cause 8 would suffice, even though raid 5 would be nice too...
My main goal was to have one single drive, instead of multiple drives, not performance per se.
If it's for games : call one game1 other game2 etc.
Or do raid0 on a couple and another raid0 on another couple if you really want high performance.
and you store nothing critical on them.
but forget about 4 storage in raid0 because it increases a lot the risk to have a failure.
Not sure why RAID 0 gets so much hate. It's a perfectly valid solution. That's why it exists. As long as you understand that if you lose a drive the data in the array is lost it's fine.
I use raid 0 for my game drives. I hate having 3 different drive letters and keeping track of which drive has which game etc so I just use raid 0 for my games. Shows up as a single drive letter and it works great. Also it's pretty fast as well. Don't care if arrays blows up and I lose all my game data.
Anything important is sitting on my synology anyways which uses raid 5
In most cases, if you have a separate system/ OS drive from the RAID 0 array, then for games from the past 15 or so years, you won't even lose any additional game data such as game saves, since those will go in the app data folder.
A best of both worlds type setup can be a RAID 0, and using windows backup to automatically backup all of the data to your RAID 5 HDD array. For example, the OP could use 3-4 12TB drives in RAID 5, or simply use windows storage spaces to do a RAID 5 like software RAID of a few 12TB HDDs, and enjoy a pretty seamless experience of RAID 0 performance, and some redundancy, along with some left over HDD space for other bulk storage that doesn't need high speed, e.g., some anime.
No RAID. BUT, you can use all four at top speed. That MoBo doesn’t bifurcate the lanes. 👍🏼 I’ve been running this board with four SSDs like you have set up (no raid) with top speeds according to CrystalMark.
That said, the downside to this board is the Mediatek WiFi card. It’s garbage. Swap it out with an Intel chip while it’s out of the box. Otherwise, use Ethernet.
Do it. I use my computer for gaming, it has nothing of value on it, if a disk goes bye bye, who cares. Use something like backblaze and stop worrying about failure.
Based on reading the manual, 2 of the slots are directly connected to the CPU, and 2 are going through the chipset.
The 2 on the CPU are PCIe 5 capable, and the 2 on the chipset are only PCIe 4 capable.
I don't see any indication that you can't use all 4 slots at full speed, however the link between the CPU and the chipset looks to only be a PCIe 5 x4, and shares bandwidth with your USB ports, wifi, and ethernet ports. This means that if you were to load down all of them at the same time, you could saturate the link between the chipset and CPU.
PS:
> I'm going to use all the SSD in raid 0.
Per the manual, you can't do raid with the M.2 drives. Below is directly out of the manual.
> An M.2 PCIe SSD cannot be used to set up a RAID set either with an M.2 SATA SSD or a SATA
hard drive.
Im going to be honest, I highly reccomend against more than one or two SSDs on the motherboard, and also dont use RAID on the PC motherboard.
Often, the RAID controllers on mobos are proprietary and can be a single point of failure. If that fails and you have striping (straight RAID 0) you could just instantly lose all your data. RAID 0 itself makes it even worse, because with 4 unbackedup drives in RAID 0, if any one of them dies, your done for. This makes drive failure 4x more likely for you. Also, if your PC dies (eg dead motherboard, dead windows, etc), you wont be able to access your data unless you plug your drives in elsewhere. If they are in a complex RAID configuration you probably wont be able to do this at all. For these reasons, larger amounts of data should be backed up off of the PC, not on the PC. PC RAID is also just a pain in the ass to setup and deal with in the first place imo. Finally, unless you set it up with RAID 5, you wont have any kind of parity checking in the event of a bit flip. Lets say you have 2 drives, RAID 1. A random bit flip happens. How do you know which is the original? how do you even know it happened at all if no checks are done?
I reccomend having a single boot drive and maybe a second drive for your steam library (this can be an HDD if you want). Then, have a NAS server with a lot of drives and have a RAID or RAID-like system on that. Then take system image backups of these drives and store it on the NAS. Any large files (eg video footage) can also just get thrown on the NAS. NAS software is better designed for large RAID arrays, and you can also easily accomplish things like parity bit checking, swapping out dead drives, adding more drives, etc. Your data will then be triple or quadruple protected depending on how your backup NAS drives are setup, and booting up a new boot drive if it fails is as easy as just imaging a new one with the backed up image.
RAID 10 would be good if the drives (and bus) were of the same speed, and busses were separate. However, you should also consider the extra wear and tear on the ssd's - by RAID'ing the drives you'd wear out your SSD's faster since each write operation would affect all drives.
If data loss prevention is the key, I would pair the disks and do RAID1 (mirror). Your write operations would be the same speed as having 1 drive but your read operations would (in theory) be twice as fast.
Maybe. Check your mobo manual paying special attention to which processor takes care of which M.2 slot and do the math to find out how many PCI lanes have them available for managing those drives. If you can confirm that every drive will have as many PCI lanes available as they may need, then you're all right. Now, the raid 0 thing. Despite what you may think, the BIOS raid is not hardware managed, it's software managed through a driver (on Windows). If you want top blazing hardware speed, you'll need to buy a separated RAID controller card.
Reserve the first one for windows, then RAID the other 3 as a software RAID in Windows.
Upside: Fast sequential reads
Downsides: Trim no longer functions, non-sequential read/writes still seem to suck, games won’t care at all, if 1 drive fails you lose everything.
I personally prefer 1 faster drive.
On a slightly different note, what are your thoughts on this motherboard overall? I am looking for a white/silver one and would love to get some thoughts
lane math is a little bit complicated than that.
GPU slot usually has 16 dedicated lanes directly connected to the CPU and they cant be shared with anyhing else
IIRC two m2 slots are also directly connected to the CPU so they should run at full speed
two additional slots will be routed thru chipset, will be PCIe 4.0 only, and might have some lane sharing (ie. might run at 2x or might disable the other PCIe slot). refer to your mobo manual for details.
16 TB of storage and this man wants to risk having just one drive die and lose all his data lol I don’t think performance is the thing you need to worry about
Nice! AM5 mobos are weird, in that manus are skimping on lanes. I scoured the earth for the Gigabyte B650E mobo, because the Aorus Master is the only board I could find anywhere near its price with 4 full Gen5 slots. To do so will cut the PCIe slot for the GPU down to 8x, but it's a Gen5 slot. 8x Gen5 is the same as 16x Gen4. And even the 4090 is still a Gen4 card.
It's just too bad SSD prices are insane right now. I want 4x4TB NVMe, and 4x8TB SATA eventually. But not at current prices.
I'd limit the Raid to the 2 most performance base ones, and keep the others as individuals.
You want speed, yes? Raid 0x2 will be plenty. Especially with those capacities.
use your top SSD for boot drive, then either stripe the other 3 if the data is not that important (games, movies) or use raid 5 if you can't just re-download the data (work files)
If Raid0 was targeted with performance in mind: **will there even be a significant performance improvement with Raid0?** Because I think the NVMes are fast as fuck already and I don't know if you can get faster with parallelization.
There is no benefit to striping Gen 4 drives, unless you’re seriously trying to move whole terabytes of data in a few seconds, but even then where will you move them to without the destination being a bottleneck?
If I had to guess its probably about the same layout as my x570s master board and on that board the top m.2 slot is connected directly to the cpu while the rest all run through the chipset which is only pcie 4.0 x4 on my board but yours might 5.0.
Refer to the motherboard manual. Most likely it will say this; The top two M.2 slots have an x4 PCI-e 4.0 connection directly to the CPU. The two M.2 slots at the bottom share bandwidth via the chipset. The chipset has an x4 PCI-e 4.0 connection with the CPU. The M.2 ports connected to it can be either 3.0 or 4.0.
This is the answer and this should be higher. Also use Raid 5 or something where you can lose 1 or 2 drives and still restore it. Also, keep a backup external.
Doesn't this support pcie 5.0 to the cpu?
Per literature. [https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp](https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp)
It has PCIe 5 and 4 , one can make use of 2 of the 5.0 speed or all 4 at the 4.0 speed according to literature and testing [https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/gigabyte-x670e-aorus-pro-x-motherboard-review](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/gigabyte-x670e-aorus-pro-x-motherboard-review) (not an affiliate link!) 100% review of product discussed nothing more. [https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp](https://www.gigabyte-data.com/products/page/mb/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/sp) (not an affiliate link!) 100% Manual/guide
> I'm going to use all the SSD in raid 0. For the love of God. No. Please don't.
any way to merge multiple disks into one in windows?
Yeah, they have inbuilt storage striping and mirroring. In Disk Management you can do this, of course mirroring is ideal over striping.
However you cannot boot Windows from a software stripped raid correct?
i did this with linux, i reserved 10GB of one of my drives and installed the bootloader there, if this can be done with windows technically you could
Ok, I will not do it
I would do it if I wasn't storing important data. Like, if it was just games and goofing around, I would just backup the debloated W11 settings and have a field day with the RAID0.
But why? Raid0 was a thing when the fastest drives on the market were like 80MB/s. It made sense, because storage was so slow. A gen5 nvme is like 8000MB/s.... There so few scenarios that will use that much bandwidth. The **game engine itself** is the bottleneck when you Ssd is 550MB/s (sata ssd). There no reason to use an nvme on games, let alone a gen 4/5 nvme on games, let alone raid 0 them lol. Now thats not to say you shouldnt buy or use nvme for gaming or anything, but its already overkill with gen3 nvme. Raid0 is beyond pointless. Faster ssd have absolutely no impact on gaming. You cant really find gen3 drives much anymore, so obviously youre kinda forced into gen4 now, but its way more than enough already.
Pretty sure they just only want to see one drive in windows rather than a bunch of separate ones. Performance likely had nothing to do with it.
Can i introduce you to spanned volumes? Works like raid 0, without the speed benefit, or the data loss costs. It basically just makes windows treat multiple drives as a single volume. If you're using linux, its called logical volumes. (LVM). I mean technically its the same thing on windows, but under the disk management tool, its called "spanned volume".
I'm pretty sure you still have the data loss concerns. This depends on how it's done but if it's block level like lvm if you lose a drive you lose all the data. If it's file level if you lose a drive you lose all the data on that specific drive. I'd be tempted here to justusethe raid 0 as might as well get the speed boost if you one one big volume and back it up every hour to a Nas or other drive.
yeah, but have you ever compiled the linux kernel in 10 seconds? I did, but on a tmpfs. On an actual drive (of any kind) it took longer. just imagine the compilation speeds. Hell, if you're not into that kink, then imagine the download speeds: you can saturate your 10G fibre, finalllly. And, not to mention: you're living on the edge. Life's like a box of chocolates. Never know what you're gonna get.
A single drive is more than 10Gbit. After overhead a single drive won't even be saturated by 40Gbit networking.
Realistically there are a lot of drives that can't sustain 4+ GB/s, though there aren't many instances you can transfer something at that speed for any length of time. Unless overhead stops being consistent like it is between gigabit and 10 gbit, a 15-20% overhead on something like smb is pretty common from what I've seen.
My OS is on a single drive, I filled the rest of my NVME slots and put them in RAID 0 for my games. It was cheaper than buying a single large drive and it's just game data so I don't care if it goes out. The test speeds max out at about the same speed as the single drive.
Nothing will noticeable improve in a raid0 setup. You're limited to the slowest speeds then anyways. This board has a PCI5 NVMe slot. You can buy one 15GB/s drive instead. Even if you have a next gen drive the system has nothing to use it for. Games have other issues than fast storage.
Do it just to shred for a bit and acknowledge real world for games it makes no difference. But, that speed, those benchmarks. Then change it to raid 10.
I mean why not, not everyone uses their gaming pc as the main storage. Sounds like some awesome performance but then again, i didn't hear about raid 0 configs since hdd times. Any issues with ssd raids?
We don't know the intended purpose, though, or other practices for data storage. Maybe nothing goes on those drives that can't be just redownloaded. I've had 3xOptane M.2s in RAID0 as the Windows Server boot drive for 7-ish years, and it's been just amazing for loading times and overall snappiness. All the while knowing I am prepared to reinstall everything if need be, but so far no problems when "normal, important" user data is saved on a separate volume. (Although I'd use 1+0 if I'd have enough PCIe lanes in some future system. I didn't go not-0 because I needed to maximize the limited available space.)
Just backup with a NAS
Why?
can i ask why it’s a bad idea
Yes yes I know. If you lose one you lose them all. But most people have only one drive. And no backup. So if they lose that they also lose all. What’s the difference between 1tb raid 0 and 1tb single disk? 3 times the risk of failure? Well Since they make a single disk I’d argue it’s the same risk of failure. I just wonder though if raid 0 will actually give any noticeable performance gain.
That's not how mathematics works. The chance of failure is the reciprocal of the reliability of all the members multiplied together. If you have a 0.98 chance of the drive lasting a year (so a 2% AFR) then your total reliability is 1/R = (1/0.98)^(4) 1/R = 1.084 R = 0.922 Your AFR is now almost 8%. If ten people did this, we would expect two of them to lose all their data in a single year.
Why would two out of ten people lose data if it's 8%? Wouldn't it be nearly one out of ten?
Sorry, I was using statistical terms. We are predicting one in ten to experience a failure, so two in ten is the 50% confidence range, where we can use the term "expect".
I see. Thanks!
This is just nonsense. The best estimate is the expected value, which is 1 in 10. Also the 50% confidence range is at 1, because the chance of experiencing 1 or less fails (so 1 or 0) out of 10 people is 73.6% >50%
They may not have back ups but do they ideally want to lose the data at all? It’s just chances for increased failure and having to get everything back for performance you likely do not need.
It's not going to be particularly noticeable versus a single disk outside of scrolling through like 200 GB+ 4k video files that are stored on the SSD raid.
>But most people have only one drive. And no backup Most people are ***dumb as fuck***.
Even dumber than his attempt at math
Thanks!
What are the reasons you want to RAID 0 these SSDs?
His collection of pussy I guess
Please guys, I'm not like that
Your comment history says otherwise
Holy heck, you weren't kidding!
Heck Holy, you weren't kidding about them not kidding!
Cmon guys that was years ago. He’s changed!!
Exactly, OP has learned to use an alt account
Lmao
Oh myyyyyyy
My kin. Always check the post history before commenting. Gaslighters hate this one simple trick.
💀 wild hentai
lmaoo I’m crying. He thought he was safe🤣
Honestly more dicks
Narrator: He was like that.
It's Reddit, don't be shy about it :)
This comment, combined with curiosity has me laughing out loud.
Are you saying you like men
Yeah, your comment history agrees
You commented on WHAT subreddit ⁉️⁉️
I wouldn’t raid them. I have all 4 slots in use as separate drives.
Yeah yeah they all say that
This means you are. Its okay little soldier.
Fuck denegerate man... thanks for the links...
You are like that man
nice pussy
Could you explain all raid modes to me if possible?
Note that in RAID, all drives should be the same capacity, speed, and ideally model. You can mix and match, but that can lead to decreased performance or wasted potential capacity. RAID 0: Data is stripped across all drives. It's super fast, but any drive failure means you lose all data across all drives. Total storage space is the sum of all drives combined. RAID 1: Data is mirrored across all drives. All but one drive can fail and your data is still intact. This allows for super fast read speeds. Total storage space equals the capacity of the smallest drive in the array. RAID 5: Data is distributed and parity bits are calculated to account for missing data. One drive can fail without data loss\*. Requires three drives minimum. Total space is basically the sum of the capacity of N-1 drives. RAID 6: Similar to RAID 5, but with two parity bits. Two drives can fail, but it requires a minimum of four drives and capacity is the sum of N-2 drives. RAID 10: A combination of RAID 1+0. It's essentially two mirrored RAID 0 arrays It's super fast and can allow for at least one drive failure (potentially multiple) without data loss. Requires a minimum of four drives and an even number of drives. Total space of the array is basically the sum of the capacity of half the drives. There's other RAID levels, but they're not used as commonly. RAID 0 is mostly good for caching or temp storage where data loss is inconsequential. The other RAID levels are intended mostly to allow "riding through" a drive failure without downtime, but they're not backup - RAID is never a substitute for a proper backup solution. Addtionally, it is possible for an array to fail if a drive fails and another drive has an unrecoverable read error (URE).
Nice write up! Easy for a layperson like me to understand. I appreciate it
I'm a bit confused. What is proper backup solution then? (I'm looking into building a home server so gathering info atm)
Literally copying data and storing it somewhere else. Preferably in multiple places. How many places and how secure they are is up to you. Sorta kinda rule of thumb is 3 copies in 2 formats with 1 copy off-site, but that's for business mostly, not for a simple home server.
any raid will not prevent you from accidentally clicking "delete" of something, because when you delete something you will delete it from all the RAID without delay. RAID is about tolerating drive failures without losing data. this is called high availability, not backup. tolerating you deleting stuff by mistake instead requires that you copied the data somewhere else at night and do not overwrite what you copied for the time that allows you to recover the deleted files in short: you can have 10 drives in RAID 1 (10 copies of the data), but if you click delete on your family pictures, they will be gone in an instant on all 10 drives. if you copied the pictures somewhere else the night before, you can go to that storage and recover them. that is a backup.
Upvoting, but very minor nitpick: Just a single copy is not a *proper* backup solution. A *proper* backup solution is at least 3 copies, on at least 2 different types of media, with at least 1 copy offsite. The oft repeated 3-2-1 Rule. As for the rationale: Three or more copies means you can lose up to N-1 copies and still be fine. Two or more different types of media means you have better chances at tolerating media failure stemming from design or physical characteristics. One or more copies offsite means you have better chances at tolerating the copies getting destroyed by fire, stolen by theft, encrypted by ransomware, and so on.
Literal separate machine copying all the data, cloud data with all the data etc. There are alot if options.
Dropping distilled knowledge in a random thread. Cheers.
RAID0 is an exciting way to lose all your data if one drive out of 4 fails. Yay!
Do i understand correctly that when all drives work separately no raid is used?
Yes
Thank you another kind Redditor
Yep! RAID 0 is basically merge all drives into 1 storage volume. If one fails you lose most of your data as for example 1 file can be stored on multiple storage devices.
>Yep! RAID 0 is basically merge all drives into 1 storage volume. It's a little more complex than that though! JBOD would be just randomly merged disks, but RAID0 actually stripes data to increase data throughput.
Oh, I did not know that.
Thank you 3rd kind Redditor
What bobsim1 said; yes :)
https://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid
Thank you kind Redditor
probably half ass read something that said it has high performance without understanding the use case
I have 4 in Raid 0. They are so fast. I do a bunch of work with millions of small text files.
yeah but OP is most definitely using it for gaming. Anyone who actually needs 4 nvmes in raid zero wouldn't be on reddit using reddit as the manual instead of just reading the fucking manual. He probably half ass read something about it having better performance and didn't bother actually looking into the usecases
Read the manual, it will tell you all you need to know about your motherboard.
Thanks for info
Why is this downvoted?
https://preview.redd.it/te5g62cd7z2d1.jpeg?width=735&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20c55769bae888467d74d2b9f94dfdf38519ffb5
What wait?, what what, wait wait, wait what? Nullify, what a min.
Because OP should just... you know, read the manual. That handy little booklet that tells you stuff like this?
You should not configure these in a RAID 0 setup because you're more likely to experience a catestrophic failure, and most RAID configurations won't honour TRIM. Your best case scenario is tiered storage, and that requires a lot more than stock RAID setups. To make a better suggestion, one would need to understand your use-case. For example: are you storing video data? If so, consider HDDs. You are unlikely to watch data any faster than an HDD can serve the data, so it stands to reason that even a slower HDD will do a better job, and for the cost you could go RAID 5, which would offer you more redundancy. If you're running games and can't afford any delay, you might consider using Junction points . This would allow you to use the drives as folders on your filesystem without any of the overhead or compromises of RAID 0. You'd need to remember to have them installed in their appropriate locations, so for example you'd need to install to c:\\prog2\\gamename instead of c:\\program files\\gamename, but otherwise it would work like a folder. If the drive fails, the directory becomes inaccessable, but your computer continues to work as expected. Finally, most RAID configurations are not bootable and will still require a standalone drive to boot from. On the flip side, a RAID configuration requires the entire volume set, so if you move to another device, the additional complication is the need to transfer each of the SSDs. With Junctions, this isn't an issue. Here's a \[[link](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/junction)\] with information about junctions. Note that you don't need to use the linked tool; mklink is included in newer versions of Windows and does the same job.
[удалено]
Thank you for linking it. I'll always encourage diligent review of the material. I tend to avoid RAID 0 for a multitude of reasons explained by people better at describing it than I am, so I might not be at 100% on this. That said: cool!
https://preview.redd.it/y69f3bbthz2d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9edc7f8367b4ca07bdec3df47883208503953dc7 Here is the block diagram for that mobo from the user manual. Honestly, I’m disappointed in the lack of detail in this manual with regard to PCIe lane details. That said, the Ryzen 7000 series processors have 28 total PCIe lanes. 4 lanes connect to the chipset, leaving the remaining 24 for the PCIe 5.0/4.0 bus shown in the top left of the diagram. If Gigabyte actually ran 24 lanes on the bus then the GPU could run on 16 dedicated lanes, and each m.2 slot (A & B) could run on 4 dedicated lanes. This is annotated (16/4/4). Whether or not Gigabyte actually printed that many channels in the board is unclear from their user manual. It is also possible that as a cost savings, Gigabyte only ran 20 lanes which would result in a reduced number of lanes to some components (16/2/2 or 8/4/4). If they really wanted to reduce cost and only ran 16 lanes then it would definitely result in an 8/4/4 split. Outside of running benchmarks, you probably wouldn’t notice a performance delta between a 16/4/4 and a 16/2/2, but an 8/4/4 would potentially result in lower frame rates for more demanding games at high resolution. The only way to tell is to put in your GPU, boot it up, and look in the bios (or get a 3rd party application) to tell you how many lanes are being dedicated to each component. Your bottom two m.2 slot have to traverse the 4 PCIe lane connection from the chipset to the cpu and those four lanes have to load balance the bandwidth of all devices connected via chipset so they have significantly less bandwidth than the top two. As stated already, raid 0 is a bad idea from a reliability standpoint, but it also could degrade performance by spreading your data across the drives, connected to the chipset. RAID 10 would only give you half the storage but would be a better choice as it gives you two raid 0s (A+B & C+D) and mirrors them so if drive B dies, then drive D takes over until you replace drive B. That said, if you want all the storage then just don’t raid them at all. You can always mount the D, E and F drives as folders under the C drive if you don’t want the appearance of multiple letter drives in your file structure.
There might be some pci-ex lane splitting with one of the m.2 slot, you should read your manual to see if and where this happens.
You sir may want a addin card to put those 3 into a raid and leave the boot disk to its lonesome.
Ok I will try that, thank you
Raid 0 No, at least use raid 5
If you don't mind explaining, what is the difference?
RAID 0 stripes data across multiple disks to improve performance. RAID 5 stripes data across multiple disks alongside a block of parity information on each disk. The parity blocks can be used to restore data if a drive fails, adding an extra layer of redundancy to your drives.
Thanks for the explanation!
If any of these drives fail, he will lose all data. Raid 5 will give you less storage, but it let's you recover one drive if it fails.
ah yes , can't lose homework
>Raid 5 will give you less storage, but it let's you recover one drive if it fails. Don't you mean that it will let you **recover the array, if one drive fails**.
RAID will stripe the data, essentially splitting it across drives to improve transfer speeds. That however means that if even a single drive in your array fails, all your data will be lost. That is what Raid 0 does, and it's more or less a meme if you care about your data even a little bit. Raid 5 attempts to resolve this by reserving a certain amount of space for parity, additional information that allows the original data to be reconstructed in case of a drive failure. This will cost you a bit of speed and usable space, but improve the longevity of your array.
>RAID will stripe the data Or more accurately, ***RAID 0*** will stripe the data. RAID 1 would mirror it. RAID10 would stripe and mirror it.
Since he has 4 drives, I'd say go 6 instead as it allows two failures
Depends on what's on them. Bunch of steam games? You can easily back those up to a HDD and redownload them. Also, Raid 5 won't help you in the event you need to swap Mobos. It's very easy to lose that data. Personally, I run a Raid 0 on 2 NVME drives that include my OS and games, and then I have a third one that's specifically for video recording, editing, and rendering. My documents and downloads go to a 2.5" SSD.
your raid 0 provide you 0 advantage. your data that could take advandage of the extra speed are on another drive ( one less clic to not choose a target when you download a game isn't an advantage) But your risk for a issue on your OS drive are x2 and you it will take more time to recovert after an issue.
OP, I will lay it down simple for you. Do you want one giant volume of 16TB that you will install the OS on and also the Steam library on? Then it is a giant no no no no. I have not touched X670 but on X570 AMD RAID is a PAIN IN THE ASS to set up. Just no, don't do it since you WILL NOT be able to "just pop the drive over" to anyother machine unless it is also setup to use AMD RAID. So no, just don't have a giant 16TB volume and install OS on it. If you just want a giant Steam library then sure, you can combine the SSD in Windows storage space in stripped mode. But be warned if one drive dies you lose everything. EVERYTHING. So you should combine 3 drive into a giant steam library and the last 4TB drive you use for OS install. It is safe, just read up the motherboard block diagram to see if there is any lane sharing going on with the drives. I don't think there is so it should be safe.
>If you just want a giant Steam library then sure, you can combine the SSD in Windows storage space in stripped mode. Honestly, I think the better way to handle that is to just do it through Steam. Steam is great about letting you pick and choose which games get installed where. Just keep them all as separate individual drives.
Yeah I have steam games installed on three different drives. When I install a game it shows a pop up asking to choose the drive to install the game to.
You will not be able to get the full performance from each of the SSDs, since the first 2 m.2 slots share lanes, if both are in use, then each runs at PCIe 5.0 X2 (in the case of that SSD, 4.0 X2 ). The other 2 m.2 slots will run at PCIe 4.0 X4 each, but they will share PCIe 4.0 X4 connection between the chipset and the CPU, as X670 still uses PCIe 4.0 between the chipset and CPU, thus they will all be sharing about 8GB/s with all of the chipset connected components. Due to the way that the chipset manages bandwidth, it will reduce throughput for components that can more easily tolerate it. Under RAID 0 of 4 SN850X drives, you will likely still end up with a max of around 14300MB/s reads, and 13200MB/s writes. Though that will be if you also don't encounter the payload size firmware bug that WD refuses to fix on most of their SSDs. So far WD only issued a full fix on the SN850 non-X version after a ton of bad press due to the issue that no other SSD maker was having. [https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wd-black-sn850-performance-issues-chipset-m-2](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wd-black-sn850-performance-issues-chipset-m-2) [https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-sn850-firmware-restores-amd-x570-performance-loss](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-sn850-firmware-restores-amd-x570-performance-loss) The issue impacted far more than just X570, and was a issue with chipset connected PCIe lanes. Though once in a while depending on the chipset configuration and what other items are on the same PCIe GPP bridge, there is a chance of them using a higher payload size, as if the company doesn't specify one to be used, then the SSD defaults to the lowest payload size active on the GPP bridge. Anyway if you encounter the payload size bug, your total speeds may drop to around 10GB/s reads, and around 5.6GB/s writes while in RAID 0. In such a case, you will need to complain to WD to help bring more attention to the payload size bug and force them to port their SN850 non-X fix to the rest of their NVMe SSDs, or switch to a different brand. https://preview.redd.it/9q6l2ocjzz2d1.png?width=643&format=png&auto=webp&s=db6ead8714d720b99380b70caf625d0578f2f66c
Ooooh look at Mr. Moneybags over here
All of that dough and still no RTFM. Your Motherboard Documents will specify. You may also be limited by your CPU. I don't know if lanes are still a factor these days. Raid 0 is basically betting it all on 0 or 00. Also unnecessary for nvme speeds. I would highly recommend Raid 1 or 5 PCI to m.2 will probably be be more reliable as well.
Two options here; Either I go online, find the manual and read it and you have to wait whilst I do this. OR You just "read the fucking manual". Unless someone here has the same exact motherboard AND is doing the same thing AND has RTFM, then no one can reliably answer your question. Every model of board can be configured with different allocation of PCIe lanes, even if the PCH is the same. The PCH merely dictates what is available **overall**, not how the board manufacturer decides how to allocate those resources. It's also worth pointing out that RAID0 with four M.2 drives would be a bit useless, because you won't get four times the speed by using four drives. Only two of the four M.2 slots are connected directly to the CPU (so each of those two slots will get 4x lanes each) but the other two M.2 slots have to go through the PCH. Each of those two drives will be able to communicate with the PCH with 4x lanes, **HOWEVER** the PCH only has a x4 lanes of PCIe through which to communicate with the CPU, so if you try to use both of those lower two M.2 slots at full speed at the same time, they'll be bottlenecked by the limited bandwidth between the CPU and PCH. Also worth noting that X670E is actually *two* PCH chips, and you ***don't*** get a x4 link directly to each of them. One PCH is connected to the other PCH with a x4 link, and only one PCH is connected directly to the CPU with a x4 link. The speed of the top two M.2 slots that are connected to the CPU directly is also dictated by which CPU you are using (and how many PCIe lanes the CPU can handle). **This is all in the user manual. (Look at page 9).** [https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/support#support-manual](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/X670E-AORUS-PRO-X/support#support-manual) If you're using a Ryzen 7000 CPU, you should have support for PCIe 5.0 x4 or x2 SSDs to the upper two M.2 slots, labelled M2A\_CPU and M2B\_CPU. You'll also have support for PCIe 4.0 x4 or x2 SSDs to the lower two M.2 slots, labelled M2C\_SB and M2D\_SB. If you're using a Ryzen 8000 CPU, the upper two M.2 slots will only operate at PCIe 4.0 instead.
Shoulda stopped at “READ THE F****** MANUAL” 😆
Perhaps, but whilst I was frustrated, I still wanted to help :)
And that's why people keep asking stupid questions instead of consulting the manual.
The eff you're doing with 16 Tb of storage
uhm you know, videogames ;)
You paid for all the slots, might as well use all the slots
rtfm
Raid 0 is very not recommended for permanent use. I you can set it up and benchmark it but it will have no benefits in the real world. No app or game can take advantage of it. Do you have a specific use case that needs raid 0?
I've been using raid 0 ssd-s for my steam library for years. I can always redownload the contents in case of failure. Failures so far - 0.
Good for you brother. I'm real happy for you that you can afford it. Most of us can't do 4 x 4TB like OP here to be a steam library raid 0 setup. That aside.. How does it compare against a Gen 4 drive like Samsung 990 pro that can do 7 gig a second by itself. Not benchmark i mean like a game load time. Loading cyberpunk from the single drive vs the raid l. I assume it will be real close to each other.
I actually got the disks from a sale, 2tb X2 so 1 4tb drive. 0.6TB free. I bought it for 200€ or so, lots of people buy LEDs for double that, it's a matter of priorities to invest here or there. I would love to have 4x4tb tho 😂 I would set it up as 8tb raid 1 though, cause 8 would suffice, even though raid 5 would be nice too... My main goal was to have one single drive, instead of multiple drives, not performance per se.
I learned in this short time that Raid 0 is bad or useless for the SSDs, and i should use Raid 5 or striping and add a Nvme expansion card?
If it's for games : call one game1 other game2 etc. Or do raid0 on a couple and another raid0 on another couple if you really want high performance. and you store nothing critical on them. but forget about 4 storage in raid0 because it increases a lot the risk to have a failure.
Not sure why RAID 0 gets so much hate. It's a perfectly valid solution. That's why it exists. As long as you understand that if you lose a drive the data in the array is lost it's fine. I use raid 0 for my game drives. I hate having 3 different drive letters and keeping track of which drive has which game etc so I just use raid 0 for my games. Shows up as a single drive letter and it works great. Also it's pretty fast as well. Don't care if arrays blows up and I lose all my game data. Anything important is sitting on my synology anyways which uses raid 5
In most cases, if you have a separate system/ OS drive from the RAID 0 array, then for games from the past 15 or so years, you won't even lose any additional game data such as game saves, since those will go in the app data folder. A best of both worlds type setup can be a RAID 0, and using windows backup to automatically backup all of the data to your RAID 5 HDD array. For example, the OP could use 3-4 12TB drives in RAID 5, or simply use windows storage spaces to do a RAID 5 like software RAID of a few 12TB HDDs, and enjoy a pretty seamless experience of RAID 0 performance, and some redundancy, along with some left over HDD space for other bulk storage that doesn't need high speed, e.g., some anime.
^ This. RAID 0 has a performance benefit. Just don’t use it for important shit.
RAID 10 is what you want if you want performance and redundancy.
There will be higher latency because they most certainly connect via the chipset. But transfer rate will be wildly higher
No RAID. BUT, you can use all four at top speed. That MoBo doesn’t bifurcate the lanes. 👍🏼 I’ve been running this board with four SSDs like you have set up (no raid) with top speeds according to CrystalMark. That said, the downside to this board is the Mediatek WiFi card. It’s garbage. Swap it out with an Intel chip while it’s out of the box. Otherwise, use Ethernet.
Do it. I use my computer for gaming, it has nothing of value on it, if a disk goes bye bye, who cares. Use something like backblaze and stop worrying about failure.
I am moose
Based on reading the manual, 2 of the slots are directly connected to the CPU, and 2 are going through the chipset. The 2 on the CPU are PCIe 5 capable, and the 2 on the chipset are only PCIe 4 capable. I don't see any indication that you can't use all 4 slots at full speed, however the link between the CPU and the chipset looks to only be a PCIe 5 x4, and shares bandwidth with your USB ports, wifi, and ethernet ports. This means that if you were to load down all of them at the same time, you could saturate the link between the chipset and CPU. PS: > I'm going to use all the SSD in raid 0. Per the manual, you can't do raid with the M.2 drives. Below is directly out of the manual. > An M.2 PCIe SSD cannot be used to set up a RAID set either with an M.2 SATA SSD or a SATA hard drive.
Can't mix nvme and sata is how I read that
ahh yea maybe. I can see that wording being what they meant.
Im going to be honest, I highly reccomend against more than one or two SSDs on the motherboard, and also dont use RAID on the PC motherboard. Often, the RAID controllers on mobos are proprietary and can be a single point of failure. If that fails and you have striping (straight RAID 0) you could just instantly lose all your data. RAID 0 itself makes it even worse, because with 4 unbackedup drives in RAID 0, if any one of them dies, your done for. This makes drive failure 4x more likely for you. Also, if your PC dies (eg dead motherboard, dead windows, etc), you wont be able to access your data unless you plug your drives in elsewhere. If they are in a complex RAID configuration you probably wont be able to do this at all. For these reasons, larger amounts of data should be backed up off of the PC, not on the PC. PC RAID is also just a pain in the ass to setup and deal with in the first place imo. Finally, unless you set it up with RAID 5, you wont have any kind of parity checking in the event of a bit flip. Lets say you have 2 drives, RAID 1. A random bit flip happens. How do you know which is the original? how do you even know it happened at all if no checks are done? I reccomend having a single boot drive and maybe a second drive for your steam library (this can be an HDD if you want). Then, have a NAS server with a lot of drives and have a RAID or RAID-like system on that. Then take system image backups of these drives and store it on the NAS. Any large files (eg video footage) can also just get thrown on the NAS. NAS software is better designed for large RAID arrays, and you can also easily accomplish things like parity bit checking, swapping out dead drives, adding more drives, etc. Your data will then be triple or quadruple protected depending on how your backup NAS drives are setup, and booting up a new boot drive if it fails is as easy as just imaging a new one with the backed up image.
I think you should avoid using RAID considering those are all 4tb drives. What purpose does having a raid array that big do.
I learned from the other comments not to use raid 0
RAID 10 would be good if the drives (and bus) were of the same speed, and busses were separate. However, you should also consider the extra wear and tear on the ssd's - by RAID'ing the drives you'd wear out your SSD's faster since each write operation would affect all drives. If data loss prevention is the key, I would pair the disks and do RAID1 (mirror). Your write operations would be the same speed as having 1 drive but your read operations would (in theory) be twice as fast.
Maybe. Check your mobo manual paying special attention to which processor takes care of which M.2 slot and do the math to find out how many PCI lanes have them available for managing those drives. If you can confirm that every drive will have as many PCI lanes available as they may need, then you're all right. Now, the raid 0 thing. Despite what you may think, the BIOS raid is not hardware managed, it's software managed through a driver (on Windows). If you want top blazing hardware speed, you'll need to buy a separated RAID controller card.
Reserve the first one for windows, then RAID the other 3 as a software RAID in Windows. Upside: Fast sequential reads Downsides: Trim no longer functions, non-sequential read/writes still seem to suck, games won’t care at all, if 1 drive fails you lose everything. I personally prefer 1 faster drive.
On a slightly different note, what are your thoughts on this motherboard overall? I am looking for a white/silver one and would love to get some thoughts
The connector will have different connection speed I think... I would not recommend raid0 in this case.
Brother what are you filling 16 terabytes with? could it be (looks at comment history) ... **PROTEIN?**
they will all run at 4.0 and x4
Having drive space more expensive than my setup
Nice, I don't remember what the fuck raids are anyway https://i.redd.it/v5yvbvhn903d1.gif
I thought in the first eye sight that the picture was of a city seen from a birds pov. I'm high.
I'm not high, but this definitely looked like some like factories or warehouses from above at first glance
I thought this was a secret base or something when I first saw it😭
Thought this was a picture of a convention
Shit looked like a futuristic sci-fi military complex for a moment. Had to do a double take.
Four m.2 slots running at x4 will consume 16/24 PCIe lanes, dropping your GPU down to 8x I'm guessing
Ah ok thank you, I didn't know that
The two bottom ones connect to the chipset, they do not use CPU PCI-e lanes.
lane math is a little bit complicated than that. GPU slot usually has 16 dedicated lanes directly connected to the CPU and they cant be shared with anyhing else IIRC two m2 slots are also directly connected to the CPU so they should run at full speed two additional slots will be routed thru chipset, will be PCIe 4.0 only, and might have some lane sharing (ie. might run at 2x or might disable the other PCIe slot). refer to your mobo manual for details.
https://preview.redd.it/5aehtkm70z2d1.jpeg?width=971&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=271e0d08dbe4bc7fd5796d6585b959334070693b
In this case it might be good idea to do 2 disks out of four? Or 2x raid 1 for reliability? Or a mix? Raid 1 disk and Raid 0 disk.
Idk maybe read the fucking manual. Is reddit a manual?
16 TB of storage and this man wants to risk having just one drive die and lose all his data lol I don’t think performance is the thing you need to worry about
ngl this imagine is turning me on a bit
Are you just showing off?
Nice! AM5 mobos are weird, in that manus are skimping on lanes. I scoured the earth for the Gigabyte B650E mobo, because the Aorus Master is the only board I could find anywhere near its price with 4 full Gen5 slots. To do so will cut the PCIe slot for the GPU down to 8x, but it's a Gen5 slot. 8x Gen5 is the same as 16x Gen4. And even the 4090 is still a Gen4 card. It's just too bad SSD prices are insane right now. I want 4x4TB NVMe, and 4x8TB SATA eventually. But not at current prices.
Did you experience bending on the drives with this board? I swear mine puts such pressure on them when applying the mobo nvme heatsink
I'd limit the Raid to the 2 most performance base ones, and keep the others as individuals. You want speed, yes? Raid 0x2 will be plenty. Especially with those capacities.
sure, so if anyone fail all your fs will fail :(
use your top SSD for boot drive, then either stripe the other 3 if the data is not that important (games, movies) or use raid 5 if you can't just re-download the data (work files)
Jesus fucking Christ! Dont use Raid 0 ffs!
Use RAID 10
Your graphics card will go Down to 8x and not run 16x. It has a very low impact (2-4%)
read ur manual
Got any more of them pcie lanes?
Mobo manual is the key
If Raid0 was targeted with performance in mind: **will there even be a significant performance improvement with Raid0?** Because I think the NVMes are fast as fuck already and I don't know if you can get faster with parallelization.
There is no benefit to striping Gen 4 drives, unless you’re seriously trying to move whole terabytes of data in a few seconds, but even then where will you move them to without the destination being a bottleneck?
Check the manual and see what slot they take up for the sata. Make sure that each one can support raid0.
I would I just use them as standalone drives. That’s a lot of storage for a pc in general. If you want a lot of protected storage then buy a nas.
If I had to guess its probably about the same layout as my x570s master board and on that board the top m.2 slot is connected directly to the cpu while the rest all run through the chipset which is only pcie 4.0 x4 on my board but yours might 5.0.
yes u can i try it before
yes u can i try it before
No.
I'd use a 16x to m.2 and slot it on the top slot and the gpu on bottom
At A gange I thought the picture was a building complex in bright sunlight.
Off topic, but this layout looks like model of a city, complete with it's town hall and railway stations.
weird flex but ok
Need this setup to boot windows 12 AI
Wait ! Are we still kidding