General advice for NAS/file server

    • Have you tested throughput from a single disk, versus a RAID1 mirror, on the same PC? There's no noticeable performance gain. While 2 disks are involved, it's still single disk I/O that's duplicated to a 2nd drive. If you setup RAID5, with a few disks reading and writing in parallel, that's a different story. (But I wouldn't do it.)
    • I haven't tested it extensively or in any way that'd satisfy the scientific method if that's what you're asking. Several years ago I used Intel ICH9 or something similar on the motherboard for a mirror, and I believe it did increase read performance. I didn't make a note of it or anything, so I can't swear it did, but that's how I remember it. At work I've got a W10 computer with some kind of mirror on it, I assume it's some newer Intel RAID implementation since it's a fairly new MB with an Intel CPU on it, but I don't know. While I haven't tested individual disks, the read performance was faster than what the specs claimed a disk could manage. Not twice as fast, but I don't remember exactly. It was half a year ago, and I just tried it for fun. I don't know about writes for either, but I would imagine it's slower than a single drive, not that it matters much in my case. At home I've got a W10 with a parity storage space, and that's complete garbage in terms of performance, at least writes which are painfully slow to the point where I may never use that kind of setup again.
    • ThomasH wrote:

      At work I've got a W10 computer with some kind of mirror on it, I assume it's some newer Intel RAID implementation since it's a fairly new MB with an Intel CPU on it, but I don't know.
      If the PC was running RAID"0", on 2 disks, that's another matter. RAID0 is what I call the "insane" array - if either of the two disks has an issue or fails, it's all over.
      RAID0 stripes data across two disks, in a way that is similar to RAID5, but without parity, so you get parallel I/O from two disks. That's, roughly speaking, 2X faster than a single disk. While 2 disks are used, RAID0 is not a mirror.

      As far as a practical application goes, gamers used RAID0, before the prices off SSD's began to drop. (And I'd be willing to bet at least a few gamers out there have 2 SSD's in RAID0.) While there may be a rare use case for it, generally speaking, RAID0 is a bad idea for a server.
    • Yes, I'm aware. I've never used striped sets (other than as part of W10 parity storage) and I wouldn't use it for storage. Doubt I'd feel any particular need to use it for anything else either; a 1TB PCIe M.2 disk is not that pricey these days and is more than enough speed for whatever I might need in terms of loading games. The only types of RAID I've ever used is either RAID1 or RAID5 (or whatever W10 parity storage space claims to be). I don't really see any theoretical reason why 2 disks in RAID0 would have better read performance than the same 2 disks in RAID1 in the same system (write is another matter), but if there is one that I'm unaware of then I'd be happy to hear it. Way I see it, you got the same controller, the same disks, and the same data. If you can read half the file from each disk in RAID0, why couldn't you do the same in RAID1?