Yep, I see this question and people wanting to do this a lot anymore.
What people who have never owned an SSD just cannot seem to understand is that a single SSD is so fast, putting a couple of them in RAID is absolutley pointless. Sure, theoretically they are going to benchmark faster that way, but there is hardly anything a person would be doing that needs more sustained throughput than a single SSD can provide. Access times are instant, and by RAIDing SSD's you actually slightly hurt this other amazing part of an SSD's performance. You also lose the benefit of the trim feature, which you really don't want to lose as this also can degrade overall performance of your SSD.
Glad to see this forum is so anti-RAID 0. It's probably the worst storage array format ever created.
Yeah I used to run RAID exclusively, for many years. 15-20 years ago when the drives measured in megabytes instead of gigabytes, and the standard ATA interface was 33, 66, 133mhz, putting a couple or more drives into RAID really made a difference. But since the SATA interface, drives have become "fast enough", and now that an average drive is 100gig instead of 100 megabytes, RAID is becoming an outdated and unpractical as a way to increase drive storage space and performance. It's quickly becoming an antiquated storage system, for the average user/gamer/office type of environment anyhow.
As jitpublisher, I used Raid0 in all my IDE system ever sense they incoprorated it on MBs. It was great, and I never lost a single drive. I still have an E6400 (OCed to 3.2) that uses raid0 (Sata HDDs). Keep it for the Kids to play on when they vist. Stopped using raid0 when I got my first SSD.
Raid0 still has a limited place, and that is if you do ALOT of work with large file structures.
By nature these files take a lot of space and SSD are generally to expensive for most, ie 500 gigs -> 1 TB space. The Newer HDDs, with their much higher magnetic domain density, and in many cases the higher failure rate than there older models means that you must use HDDs made to work with raid.
Trim support, is probably the biggest negative for raid0. However Intell should be releasing RST ver 11.5+ which is suppose to allow trim to pass when drive is a member of a raid set-up (Back of mind in a month or two). AND THIS only applies if using a intel chipset!!
.. Improves Sequencial performance, BUT this is the Least Important parameter for an OS + Program drive. It is the small 4K random performance that is IMPORTANT and raid0 does very little to no improvement on this catagory - HENSE Raid0 does Very little to improve performance on a OS + program drive.
.. The improvement in sequencial performance is why I stated it would boost performance when working with LARGE file structures - But here it is limited to the read and write portion - as NO in-program performance is not dependent on SSD, or HDD.
Side comment, One reason larger SSDs are faster than their smaller sibling, is that the larger SSD uses two Little brothers in raid0 internally. (other reasons also exsit).
I have NO need for SSDs in Raid0, and I think in the vast majority of users a larger SSD is more sensible. SSD speed and HDD speed have the same IN-PROGRAM performance, and gamers see No Improvement in FPS when game is running - SO Placinging SSDs in Raid0 would do What.... That Said, I'm not totally opposed to RAID0, when most usesage is with large files, such as enconding/converting large Vedio files (.vobs are 1 Gig files, blue-ray up to 40 gigs for a single file.), Very large spreedsheets, Cad/Cam drawings, and working with hundreds of them 10 meg Photo bitmaps/jpegs. - ALL these, unlike os and program files, are Very large sequencial files - even a "Small" 10 meg Photo is 2,500 sequencial clusters. For Raid0 stay away from SF based Controllers, Recommend the marvel M4, Samesung 830, and Intel 510 (510 uses the marvel controller - the 520 uses the SF controller. - My reasoning is not just from reliability, but SF controlled get high Seq marks because of compressing the data, if data is non-compressable, performance drops off considerably.
There are two scenarios which are making RAID 0 over SSD valuable:
Large printing jobs (put your Windows spool folder on the RAID )
Math operation on large Databases ...
I have both of them...
Imagine you have to produce >38 000 Pages daily (I am doing this with software Product named CSW ProForma)
It is quite good but has poor printing performance - once the data have to be transfered to the printer(s) it was taking hours... (3-4 Hours)...
2 Pcs. 128 Gb Samsung 830 Drives combined in RAID 0 allowed to this 10x times faster (real world measurement) - spooling takes now about 20 min.!
Imagine you have Database with byers transactions (about 80 Mio. records + daily increasing about 30-50 000) and have to do "what-if" analysis... including sophisticated mathematic operations on **every** record... I already opened an question by Stackoverflow... but everybody meant - your bottleneck is the filesystem - you have to read every record from disc - that is why it takes up to 8 hours and must be done over night...
So put 4x 256 GB SSD together in RAID 0 (using SAS RAID controler) solves the problem...
Conclusion: i think there is no reason why an private person will really need an RAID 0 array over SSDs, but there are situations where this can be very helpfull and valuable!