In the CPU forum there are threads about "good enough CPU", what is "good enough primary storage"?

[Ancalagon44]

1. Capacity

2. More than enough IOPS for a single user in most scenarios (assuming enough RAM is present)

3. SSDs are more difficult for data recovery than hard drives.

1. We are talking about consumer, not enterprise use cases here.

2. We are talking about consumer, not enterprise use cases here.

3. We are talking about consumer, not enterprise use cases here.

Again, important note, consumers. I am... a somewhat tech enthusiast consumer. So I currently have one 250GB SSD, one 500GB SSD, and 2 x 2 TB hard drives. I am a consumer and even for a consumer, what I have is somewhat excessive.

No consumer, right now, NEEDS a 2TB SSD. They might like it, but they don't need it. No consumer NEEDS more performance than a Samsung 960 Pro can provide. Again, they might want it, but they don't need it. And lastly, no consumer data is so critical that RAID 1, 5 or 10 is worth considering from a data recovery point of view. Using Google Drive to backup your documents is far easier and cheapier. Remember, again, one thing you seem to be forgetting, is that we are talking about consumer scenarios here. Consumers want to back up documents and photographs.

An enterprise customer might have to start looking availability, reliability, cost and performance. A consumer does not.

I say again, consumers do not need RAID for any scenarios at all.

 

[cbn]

I'll never go back to RAID0 for consumer use. I had a RAID0 array years ago, and of course that meant it was tied to the motherboard it was created on. When that died, the array was useless. Had to ask a local computer shop to help me recover the data, and he could only recover some of it. Never again!

Matrix RAID?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005789/technologies.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

So what you have is one partition of the array as RAID-0, then another partition for data you are concerned about as RAID-1. This way if one of the hard drive fails (or the motherboard dies) you only lose what was in the RAID-0 partition.

Again, why bother with RAID at all for consumer scenarios? Whatever type of RAID you are talking about, whether it is 0, 1, 5, 10 or Matrix RAID, is wholly and completely unnecessary for consumer workloads.

SSDs provide speed and reliability with none of the downsides of any RAID configuration. Super fast while also being unharmed by all but the most severe shocks.

As a somewhat educated consumer and former RAID 0 user, I would never both with any sort of RAID on the desktop ever again. Not even RAID 1.

1. Capacity

2. More than enough IOPS for a single user in most scenarios (assuming enough RAM is present)

3. SSDs are more difficult for data recovery than hard drives.

1. We are talking about consumer, not enterprise use cases here.

2. We are talking about consumer, not enterprise use cases here.

3. We are talking about consumer, not enterprise use cases here.

Again, important note, consumers. I am... a somewhat tech enthusiast consumer. So I currently have one 250GB SSD, one 500GB SSD, and 2 x 2 TB hard drives. I am a consumer and even for a consumer, what I have is somewhat excessive.

No consumer, right now, NEEDS a 2TB SSD. They might like it, but they don't need it. No consumer NEEDS more performance than a Samsung 960 Pro can provide. Again, they might want it, but they don't need it. And lastly, no consumer data is so critical that RAID 1, 5 or 10 is worth considering from a data recovery point of view. Using Google Drive to backup your documents is far easier and cheapier. Remember, again, one thing you seem to be forgetting, is that we are talking about consumer scenarios here. Consumers want to back up documents and photographs.

An enterprise customer might have to start looking availability, reliability, cost and performance. A consumer does not.

I say again, consumers do not need RAID for any scenarios at all.

Okay, so we are back to RAID-0 for hard drives vs. one large SSD.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Okay, so we are back to RAID-0 for hard drives vs. one large SSD.

For enterprise users.

Consumers do not need RAID 0. Consumers do not need any kind of RAID whatsoever.

Enterprise users are probably better served by RAID that provides parity, unlike RAID 0.

 

[cbn]

For enterprise users.

Consumers do not need RAID 0. Consumers do not need any kind of RAID whatsoever.

Enterprise users are probably better served by RAID that provides parity, unlike RAID 0.

Ancalagon44, you missed the point I was trying to make with the string of quotes in post #27.

Here is what you wrote in post #8:

I'll never go back to RAID0 for consumer use. I had a RAID0 array years ago, and of course that meant it was tied to the motherboard it was created on. When that died, the array was useless. Had to ask a local computer shop to help me recover the data, and he could only recover some of it. Never again!

Now compare this to what you wrote below in the latter part of post #26:

No consumer, right now, NEEDS a 2TB SSD. They might like it, but they don't need it. No consumer NEEDS more performance than a Samsung 960 Pro can provide. Again, they might want it, but they don't need it. And lastly, no consumer data is so critical that RAID 1, 5 or 10 is worth considering from a data recovery point of view. Using Google Drive to backup your documents is far easier and cheapier. Remember, again, one thing you seem to be forgetting, is that we are talking about consumer scenarios here. Consumers want to back up documents and photographs.

So that is how we are back to RAID-0 for hard drives vs. one large SSD.....because as you mention consumers do back-ups.

 

[Ancalagon44]

RAID 0 is worse for data recovery than a single hard drive! If one drive in a RAID 0 array fails, you lose the entire thing with 0% chance of recovery.

How does that relate to consumer data and backups?

Anyway, I'm out of the thread. You seem to love RAID 0. Please implement a RAID 0 and have fun.

 

[cbn]

RAID 0 is worse for data recovery than a single hard drive! If one drive in a RAID 0 array fails, you lose the entire thing with 0% chance of recovery.

How does that relate to consumer data and backups?

Look through the string of posts I included in post #27.

One of the points I brought up (during our conversation) was "SSDs are more difficult for data recovery than hard drives". Then in post #26 you brought up that we are discussing consumer and not enterprise.....and that consumers back up their data.

Okay, so now because of back ups we are back to RAID-0 hard drives vs. one large SSD for people that want a single, but large volume.

In any event, here is some more info (to possibly consider) from Google on SSD vs. Hard drive:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/ssd-reliability-in-the-real-world-googles-experience/