Onboard raid vs Windows 10 raid speed test experiment
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 сер 2018
- Trying to find the best raid option with what i got, so i decided to test the speed difference between onboard raid and software raid in windows. thanks for the view!
○○○ LINKS ○○○
Motherboard ► amzn.to/2KECALS
○○○ SHOP ○○○
Novaspirit Shop ► goo.gl/gptPNf
Amazon Store ► amzn.to/2AYs3dI
○○○ SUPPORT ○○○
patreon ► goo.gl/xpgbzB
○○○ SOCIAL ○○○
novaspirit tv ► goo.gl/uokXYr
twitter ► / novaspirittech
discord chat ► / discord
FB Group Novaspirit ► / novaspirittech
○○○ Send Me Stuff ○○○
Don Hui
PO BOX 765
Farmingville, NY 11738
○○○ Other Videos ○○○
pigrrl zero ► • Video
Pi Zero FPV ► • Raspberry Pi Zero W FPV
3d scanner ► • $100 Ciclop 3D scanner...
Windows 98 in 2018 ► • Windows 98 in 2018
colored gpio ► • Colored GPIO Headers P...
pi-juice review ► • PiJuice Hat Review
windows 10 on arm on rpi3 ► • Windows 10 on ARM (WoA...
$10 usb soldering iron ► • $10 USB soldering iron...
overclock raspberry pi ► • Overclocking Raspberry...
win 10 update and more ► • Win 10 on Rpi3 Update ...
deepin linux ► • Deepin Linux Review! F...
patreon @ / novaspirittech
Tweet me: @ / novaspirittech
facebook: @ / novaspirittech
Instagram @ / novaspirittech
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. - Наука та технологія
I completely appreciate your dedication to this test. I would have stopped before reformatting and rebuilding the OS! Thanks for testing and teaching us all something new.
He didn't even set up software RAID 0. He pooled the drives to make the OS see them as one drive.
You have to Stripe them.. that's RAID 0 software style. RAID 0 is striping.
Do it through the BIOS when it's easy and possible. But if you do it through Windows, you only lose 2% performance at most. At MOST.
As others have already mentioned, most mainboards don't have hardware actual RAID processors (I have seen boards with one, but they are rare). BIOS RAID option just tells the operating system's storage controller driver to treat separate drives as a RAID array (this is often called firmware RAID). Windows Storage Spaces works pretty much the same way - it also has it's own driver which creates a RAID array from separate devices, albeit in a slightly non-standard way.
Both firmware RAID and Storage Spaces are software RAID solutions, which use host system's CPU to emulate a RAID controller. The only difference is the implementation.
Hardware RAID controllers on the other hand have their own dedicated processors for all RAID operations and do not rely on host CPU. For most ordinary people, software RAID is usually good enough. Hardware RAID should only be used if you want a high performance RAID without putting extra load on your processor or you want better reliability.
Be aware, that most cheap SATA cards with RAID function do not really have RAID controllers but instead rely on OS drivers for RAID, pretty much the same way as BIOS RAID does.
Your benchmark results look really strange. Your array should have been much faster than a single disk, not slower...
How could i check if my motherboard has a hardware raid processors?
You need to do Striping for the speed performance boost, and it's usually only about 30% of a boost. In the Windows option, you have to make them Dynamic discs first.
I striped a pair of 7200rpm Ultrastar 70004K's in Windows Disk Manager and the data throughput literally doubled according to the default tests in CrystalDiskMark. But I wouldn't be surprised if the the gain is far lower with SSD's.
Yeah, it's called Striping. That's what software RAID 0 is, and it's been around for longer than Windows 10.
And I get about 95% speed increase on 2x 7200RPM 1TB Seagate 7200.14 drives.
Went from 185Mb/s read to 360Mb/s read.
I didn't do it the "hardware" way because I would heeded to have them in the first two SATA ports on my motherboard, and I did not feel like switching all my 6x drives around for what I already knew would have the same performance. I've done hardware RAID 0 before. Back before SSD's were a thing. It was my first custom build.. back in like 2005 or so. I started out on one drive. Bought another. These drives were 60Mb/s drives. Seagate 7200.7's or something. Maybe older. Went from 60Mb/s to 120Mb/s. It was 98%-100% of an increase in speed.
Even right now, I'm really getting closer to 100% of an increase in read/write speeds, but I've got far more data on these drives so that's effecting my benchmark scores by a little.
This guy is ignorant. Not an insult. Just... by definition, ignorant.
Thanks for doing this, surprisingly hard to find this kind of comparison video. I think I'm gonna end up doing the same test in the build I'm currently planning, rather than just going off of what I've read so far. Nothing beats seeing it firsthand to know what I'll actually experience in practice.
When you booted for the bios bases raid config did you remove the m.2 nvme drive and build the OS on the raid array drive?
In 6 Minutes you saved me 5 hours of my time. Thank you.
for raid 0 with 3 disk 7200 , what is the best ? use windows raid 0 or amd sb710 fake raid 0 ?
os is on other SSD , i don't boot on raid volume , i use it for game
Thumbs up for your dedication - everbody hates to format the computer. Interesting test!
On storage pools, the GUI will create a JBOD which does not enhance performance with striping. This can only be done when creating the pool and virtual disk through PowerShell and adjusting NumberOfColumns and Interleave parameters. I will likely go this route when I get my X570 board :) On the AMD RAID, the drivers available are quite dated and in fact of the latest drivers, an older build may be better performing (check out the win-raid forum)
What SSD's are you using? Brand and type?
i have two WD Red (2x4TB) in Raid-0 bios raid on Aourus x570 motherboard. i was messing around with ubuntu 22.04 (Try Ubuntu) and sometimes with a persistence partition so i could changes and updates and it would save so i didnt have to do it all over on next boot. well it messed up my raid-0 somehow. i was just wondering is one of these setups more reliable then the other? bios raid vs windows raid? thanks for the time you spent researching and sharing.
On mine striped on Windows is 800+, spanned is 500+. In the BIOS it is 500+. MX500 x 2.
Omen Obelisk 9700. M.2 970 EVO PCIe x 4 is 3500/3200+. WD M.2 PCIe x 2 is 1400/1200+.
What I find with default config of your motherboard (F5) and then (F10) to save and exit... is that, the STORAGE devices are smooth; fan runs quietly. I have tried all kind of settings, CMS enabled, disabled, Auto, AHCI, RAID... and, I think it's best to keep the settings at default for your motherboard or system.
dynamic disks. not spanning mate. its called striping (raid 0) or mirror (raid 1). spanning is JBOD (just a bunch of disks). you did it wrong
This helped noone
I just about enter this issue. Now you navigate me to the exit directly. Thanks!
Thank you very much Sr.!
some hardware raid does not support the trim function which slows down the write performance on SSDs on the long-term. Also you probably chose the wrong setting for the raid, i have 2 ssd kingston A400 480gb in raid 0 on windows and i get double the speed. raid is only supported on windows 10 pro version
Wow this is a great test. Because of this test i was considering doing a completely separate NAS raid for my surveillance storage. But, looking at the native / software raid speeds from windows, I think I will stick with recording to direct storage. Screw QNAP and Synology, ive read forums of terrible vendor support and will only support you when you throw you wallet at them. And don't get me started with their monthly subscription fees just for customer support. No thank you! Eventually i will get to UNRAID, FreeNAS etc. and test these out
You don't have to use Unraid. They make things very simple and user-friendly, but in the end, it's just Linux and setting up RAID on Linux is really simple. On FreeNAS, you'll be using ZFS, which entirely different and in a good way.
I wsih I had found this video a few days ago. I just went through about all the same steps as you! funny enough I ended up using win10 storage spaces raid and not onboard because it was acting dumb. I glad I made the right choice and your video confirms my same speeds. The package or data size the testing tool uses does make some difference between the tests.
That look when you decided to FORMAT! lol Great video. That's something I would spend a weekend playing with too.
That was funny 🤣
You needed to create a striped drive. That allows you to set up RAID 0 in Windows 10.
OK, but why is the hardware RAID so fucking slow, any idea?
@@Kackspack0815 It's not hardware RAID. Just different software RAID.
Maybe with the third test the system didn't have the same set of drivers.
@@Kackspack0815Where it matters it was writing almost twice as fast, and reading only 15% slower. You're looking at the wrong numbers, although there is still something wrong.....he may have all his other drives on the same sata controller and/or he has the block/stripe size set wrong for the results he wants.
he shoud has intel rapid raid softwere on his mobo. Its make right way for performance
Storage pool is also JBOD.
For RAID 0 under Windows Disk Manager you need to select "Striped".
You have compared nothing here.
hardware raid ?
ty you saves my time
I use amd cpu and tried both. Their seq speeds are doubled but 4kib speeds are almost no change
I'm not sure what's going on with your setup. I have an M.2 512GB 960 Pro that gets similar results to yours, 4 x 250GB 850 Evos at 1.5GB/s read, 2 x 1TB 860 Evos at 1.0GB/s read. I used the motherboard (software) RAID. Both RAID arrays are RAID0, as I chose speed over resilience. Your BIOS looks a little dated, but I don't think the board is that old?
the board is about 1 year old still using ryzen 1700
@@NovaspiritTech what drives are u trying to raid 0?
specs onboard?
how can he being confused between spanned and striped
Spanned volume in Windows creates a JBOD array, which effectively combines multiple disks into one huge volume
Well, that sounds safe for your data...not!
In theory it should fill up one disk in order, then move onto the second one, preventing complete data loss if one disk died
However, you'd not want to create a JBOD array without it also being part of a mirrored array
@@d1oftwins: Much safer than RAID0.
Seems microsoft fixed software raid issue. I had problems with AMD hardware raid since it has 1 storage controller and i have bunch of disks i don't want to raid, so enabling raid in bios just was turning off all other non raid disks. I made raid 0 with windows disk management tool and speeds increased as intended for 900mb/s for 2x 120gb samsung 830 evos
Spanned isn't RAID, it's JBOD.
How old are the ssd"s??.., ssd tech has grown quite a bit in recent years, suck's you can't rum win10 from emmc, and raid at the same time!??...., dang it!!.....
AFAIK windows pooled drives just concatenates drives... that's why you got same speed.. you were only writing to the first drive... when the first gets full it starts to fill the second
No its "windows raid 0" tried it myself yesterday and performance is crap and unsable pending from 50-150-220 MB/s while OnBoard Intel runs stable at around 230 MB/s, talking write now.
@@Blackkatt What block size are you using to stripe the data though?
I did Raid 0 with two of my cheap TS480GSSD220S SSDs and it almost doubled the results. Seems something is wrong with your PC.
Should be noted that you cannot create a raid0 through storage spaces as he thinks he is doing. That does not create a raid0 but a jbod, the same as when he created spanned storage. Storage spaces does not support creating a raid0. While you can do it through powershell, you can also do it through disk management where you want to create a striped volume.
So yeah, he is defiantly doing it wrong.
Onboard is not recommended as that cannot be transferred to a different future motherboard, software raid can.
dude, on a consumer board don't bother trying to RAID SSDs, especially on SATA. IMO the RAID only makes sense for magnetic hard drives. The SSD was already saturating your SATA anyway. If you want to RAID SSDs get a dedicated card that can use PCIE lanes. But all of this is really over kill for your regular pc. Even sata SSDs are mad fast already.
You are right
The problem is ... the non sequential speed ... i need something fast for working with video and i just don't know what is the best solution to avoid the HDD bottleneck caused by the not really fast speed of the non sequential tansfers, you know, that last result in the benchmark, 4kb...
On most of the main boards the hardware raid is a fake raid. You have to use a true raid addin card to get the right performance. The other way is to use software raid which is faster than the fake hardware raid of most of the main boards.
yes onboard raid is still software raid since it still requires the main cpu to perform the raid
ALL raid is software raid. the builtin windows raid uses your cpu and software, and the embedded raid on your motherboard uses software but it is built into a chip. If you purchase a $2k raid card, it is still running in software, albeit on the chip that only has one function in life (and hence a gazillion times faster). The problem is that the company or developer that created the raid may or may not be focused on speed. Windows will do raid as long as it can keep up with the other tasks at the same time. The MOBO raid may have been focused on data integrity so the speed isn't as fast. Maybe they just didn't have the coding skills. Maybe the MOBO just doesn't have the built in processing horsepower to handle higher speeds. The bottom line is that when you get a dedicated RAID card, that was built with only one purpose and it will tend to do it much better than MOBO or OS raid. I have a ton of experience with "freenas" and that OS is meant to address the drives directly so it has access to SMART info, and can handle its own caching. As long as the hardware is powerful enough, the freenas OS can crank out some serious performance.
We are approaching the max of what you can do with the booting of winodws, it is the partitions that we access after that where we can get huge numbers. You get build a nas and attach it (iscsi) with a dedicated 10gbps (or now 25gbps) network and see number that would make your head spin. The technology is there, sometimes it is just a matter of $$$.
Bottom line: ALL RAID IS SOFTWARE RAID.
Windows 10 gave no seq speed boost but my 4k speed boosted like crazy
Not true. Intel RST doubles the performance. SOmething isn't right or AMD doesn't provide the same performance
@@ScottPlude stand up and tell them again!! you nailed it!
I have 720/957 raid 0 ssd done under windows
You configured raid 0 wrong in windows
Hardware RAID controller will disable the internal cache of SSD and 'slow down' the performance.
my crucial 500 GB ssds are fine onboard raid 0 double of performance
I had a raid 0 (2x 480GB intel ssds) using the onboard raid 0 option for my larger storage "F" drive and an Intel 180GB as my main "C" drive. This setup had certain latency issues. The one that was mostly noticeably was when I closed out Firefox, I had to wait for almost a minute before I can reopen it back up again otherwise windows would say the this program is not responding. This always happened when I would install Firefox on the C or F drives. Once I set up the F drive using a striped array option in windows 7 disk manager, all the latency problems seemed to have gone away and Firefox was operating normally. Then when I decided to finally install Windows 10 on a new Crucial 280GB ssd, Windows 10 already recognized the striped F drive and everything was still in it.
@@MrDSMek Is the MB equipped with an Hardware RAID card or a software RAID? Hardware RAID is the one that will turn off the SSD internal cache. There is a setting in HW RAID card to turn the internal cache on, but it will expose the system to data lost under power surge.
@@amos614 hello, i dont know. I settuped raid using onboard software before post procesudre (ctrl-I) and thats all.
The on board RAID of consumer mainboards are in fact not real RAID controllers - all the work is done by the driver in the OS - I assume that the software RAID in Windows ist just much better code that the drivers
Intel has CPU level hardware acceleration in the I/o with Intel RST for crc checks . AMD is software and hardware but the hardware is not n the chipsets outside the CPU
For performance with only 2 disks use the stripped option / RAID 0
He did
@@KaganRustem No, he used the spanned option. He just combined the two drives into one, but they weren't striped. Striped = RAID 0.
This was hard to watch.. because he was doing everything wrong.
But the comments are even harder to read because I'm realizing just how computer illiterate the vast majority of people are.
Write/read cache is slowest. Set it to only read cache.
Try intel machine
Hardware raid has to be faster right?
Should be.
Motherboard raid is often just a version of software raid as the cpu is still doing all the work.
You need stripped not spanned for raid 0 speeds i don't remember exactly what i had with onboard raid but it would keep bringing arays offline which pissed me off so i formated it all was't even using raid on other drives just on 2 of my ssd's decided to use software raid for now cos that way i can actually hotswap 4 drive bays on my lian li case, my ssd's aren't in those hot swap cages btw, anyway got roughly 1044 read 935 write far better then just single drive my only worry is loss of data cos of software raid still better tho to have nvme tho for speed, want to raid 0 my ssd's cos it balances the write cycles over the 2 drives rather then 1 drive which it would do in jbod while other drive barely get write cycles unbalancing load and writing on same cell repeatly degrading 1 of my ssd's faster, its always better to balance writes and leave portion open on the ssd to increase lifetime, and software raid does not support trim so guess im not using raid 0 at all anymore as that would in theory decrease lifetime of my ssd's
Noooo Don't use storage spaces :(. Use the same way as before. Just hit raid 0 instead of spanned!!! Still, the hardware raid results I would expect to be fastest. But your results are unexpected. Looks like I'll have to test myself for sanity lol. Thanks for the vid tho.
not sure how no one here caught this and being a tech channel u didn't create your raid0 correctly under windows. should've chosen strip option instead of spanning 2 disks( spanning means when you disk 1 is full, it will start to write to disk 2, but treating 2 disks as 1 big volume, i don't even think span raid, but more like a symbolic link for 2 disks junctions). strip(raid0) equally write and read from both of the drives at the same time which theoretically and usually doubles the original performance(if you have 2 identical drives then you should get about 1 gb read/write). onboard raid usually slightly faster than windows, but yea, you didn't set up any of them correctly. and you definitely do not need raid card(hardware addon card) to get raid 0 performance.
Yea it is your run of the mill average tech channel. Amazing really...
Software
I get the opposite results.
With Intel RST (onboard RAID) and 4 SSDs in RAID 0 I get 1904 MB/s read 1930 MB/s write
With Storage Spaces (software RAID) and 6 SSDs in RAID 0 I get 1241 read and 1341 write
Even if I have two extra drives I get less performance with software RAID.
The only reason I use Storage Spaces is because it support TRIM
The regular software RAID in Disk Management doesn't support TRIM, because it change the drives to Dynamic Drives and Dynamic Drives doesn't support TRIM
And you don't want to mess with storage spaces in desktop Win10. Just go with disk manager and choose RAID-0/Striped.
I appreciate the time spent on this test, but i recommend reading more about spanned volumes, stripped volumes, raid0, nvme, and ahci, that would have saved you lots of wasted time trying to prove/test what has already been proven and tested. on piece of advice, read and write cache enabled on drives that don't have dedicated backup battery is the perfect formula to have your data lost, especially on a raid0, and with you OS installed on that!!! :-)
I have Intel Rapid storage on an old X79 MB. With 2 SATA SSD's I get around 1000 MB/s, so not double the speed of a single drive, but better. These are on SATA6, so nominally maxing out at 600MB/s with a single drive. Clearly my hardware RAID0 does better than that.
With four 5400rpm HDD's I get around 250 MB/s. Again not four times a single drive but better than two times. These are SATA 3, so nominally at 300MB/s maximum speed with a single drive. I don't have four SSD's so I haven't tested. I don't mind because the only reason to use 4 drives these days (2022) is for mass storage and not speed even on my old system.
With Windows storage spaces I have had good luck with two spinning HDD's on USB almost doubling the speed, but have never seen a speed improvement with SSD's. For some reason using four drives is actually slower. Two drives the fastest. I use two 4TB external drives in this configuration to get an 8TB drive portable with a reasonable speed via USB. No extra power required. Again, really only for mass storage and not for speed.
Echoing one of the comments below, all of my computers have battery backup to manage power loss. This is essential if you are using RAID0 especially as the boot drive. BACKUP YOUR DATA. It's usually pretty easy to install the OS but very hard to replace data. I have a NAS for backup and I only use RAID0 for speed locally.
Update: I found this video because I was also testing on board RAID speed and I have done more testing. I swapped my old 4 WD Green HDDs from 10 years ago with two more modern WD Reds and One Seagate, all 6TB. In a RAID 0 (three drives) Sequential READ is around 540 MB/s and Sequential WRITE, around 400 MB/s. So pretty fast for spinning disks and double the previous performance with four old drives. I tested with 4 drives with an 1 old WD Green 3TB and three newer 6TB drives, and found no speed improvement. Anyway, 500MB/s is fast enough for my purpose and a three drive RAID0 means I can keep my DVD hooked up.
Lesson: configuration, hardware and drives all matter. TEST TEST TEST...
raid 0 theoretically double your performance. the Windows 10 RAID is superior and is free, you have to set it up through Disk Management not create a pool
In what way is it free?
@@jeschinstad Because its included functionality in W10.
@@Spicysauced: So, it's free once you pay for it?
@@jeschinstad .....
In Germany we have a word for people like you, "Korinthenkacker". Go look that up :)
@@Spicysauced: So all commercial products are free of charge because you don't have to pay for them once you've paid for them, and saying otherwise, is just nitpicking. Ok.
you don't do it through creating a pool. You do it through disk management. Both drive needs to be change to dynamic disks by selecting striped, which is RAID0.
You muppet, you're hitting the limit of usb 3 :P
Weird... With Intel boards I can achieve 900-1000Mb/s speeds doing hardware raid...
I got 13000/13000 on x299 asus mobo using pcie bus asus hyper card 4x m2 w10 disk management stripped raid O !
I bang my keys loudly in the bios too! Ha!
I think hands down it would be an on board raid
Never ever.
I think hardware.
RAID 0 Striped Drive 1MB blocks, UPS, Write Back Disk Cache - windows 10 disk politics x deactivate memory flush
RAID 0 "Stripe" setup double's not only space but also the speed, span doesn't double your speed but will allow to combine two different capacity storage together to form 1 huge partition! The downside of RAID 0 Stripe is that if you have two different storage capacity, it will only create a striped partition to the smaller drive match. But, the remaining space can be partition as secondary, but will not be as fast as RAID 0 Striped!
Agreed. That wasn’t raid.
Anyone did try the raid 0 ? Because I remember I tried all windows raid options and all were slower than single drive.
If you did, please share the result.
spawn deez nutz
That is strange, before I had my NvME drive I had two 500GB drives in hardware RAID (on an AMD Ryzen 1700) - it gave me above 1GB/s of transfer rate, it was great... now I installed my NvME(about 3GB/s) drive and had to do the software RAID (what you did first) and I found out that it gave meabout the same performance on I had with only one drive, which is exactly what you found out as well.
I saw no error in the way you proceeded, so it must be your onboard RAID that is messing with you.
About drive spanning, you should NEVER do this with any SSD drive, it will kill the "first" drive in the span very fast because it fills them in order, and a full SSD is supposed to die pretty fast because the wear leveling algorithm cannot work well when a drive it full or nearly full.
both onboard and software RAID is using your CPU. Onboard RAID is not true 'hardware' RAID. Onboard RAID = 'fakeraid' (Google it).
For true hardware RAID, a dedicated RAID add in card with the words 'hardware RAID' on it is required. Proper RAID cards will have RAM and RAID On Chip (ROC) processors and set you back at least $500.
Here is what you did wrong: you didn't start with reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID , meaning: it looks like you have no idea what raid actually is. (No offense intended!) There are other primers out there which explain this in better detail then the wiki page but you have got to start somewhere. That on board raid thingy that almost all PC Mobos now a days have is also known as FakeRAID(www.abmx.com/blog/difference-hardware-software-fakeraid)
The name FakeRAID should already give an indication...
And RAID0 is unambiguous since it both refers to concatenating(aka spanning) and/or stripping. Both give a completely different performance.
In the old days SUN had a five day course only regarding RAID in all its incarnations, and the impact that a given set up had on throughput with regards to read/write performance. So this is no easy topic that you can tackle in an evening of experimenting...
mrcturbor this is awesome explanation
+1 for hardware
The cheap onboard RAID is not real hardware RAID. But I am surprised its that much worse!
Software raid on windows is the worst. Mobo raid is meh. Unfortunately, you gotta be willing to throw down the dough on a good controller card if you want to raid like a boss
So you're asking whether software RAID running on a cheap and tiny little onboard chip will be faster or slower than software RAID using a modern, expensive and powerful CPU. Hmm. What an interesting question. :)
You should always use software raid these days. Hardware raid is becoming a thing of the past and bad practice.
this is the answer I was looking for
What is the best practice for home use (RAID1)? Win10 RAID with dynamic drives or MB raid?
Using SSD's for RAID 0 is generally not a great idea. Because they're not spindles, the speed increase is negligible usually (as you saw originally).
The issue with the onboard is because of your cache setup. If you set it to None, it would've performed a bit better (again, not a lot, as they're SSDs)... Using the drives that you want to RAID, as a cache for the RAID information isn't helping, it's hindering (thus the lower transfer speeds)!
Finally, if you wanted to get an increase to your write performance from the RAID on your SSD's, you could've setup a partition on your NVMe as a cache for the RAID 0, disabled Windows Write Cache for the RAID 0, and then it would buffer using the NVMe speeds, which would give you insane WRITE speeds, at least until the cache fills...
This isn't exactly complicated or advanced tech stuff... RAID and caching have been a thing since the 70's.
don't hold the camera... it's so awful
raid 0 is pretty worthless. raid 5 should be tested.
Raid 10 is faster and safer
Can you PLEASE stop literally SMASHING the enter key? It gets me so damn triggered. its just soo annoying. Don't know why.
But other than that, interesting video! I liked it and keep it up! :D
Hardware is the fastest
Why make a video when you have no clue of what you're doing?
You've not showed your mobo model, even no CPU vendor. You're talking about mythical "raid" not even specifying RAID level. Soooo lame. Hint: striped RAID-0 has such thing as stripe block size. It affects the performance a lot.
Link to mainboard is in the video description. The CPU is some model of AMD Ryzen. RAID level is 0, he told that in the video.
And please, stop acting like a troll.
that's another sign of lameness. Why he not just put the link to good video instead of this shit?
@@fffUUUUUU link to what video? wtf are you talking about? All the info is in this video's description.