Originally Posted by timma100
Sorry XSCounter but RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks. Notice that its plural lol. So you can't really raid with one disk
RAID 0 will be faster than AHCI but you need two identical disks. RAID 5 is good but you need three disks, and you loose the storage of one because its used for parity bits (helps stop data corruption) Or you could do RAID 0+1 were you have two identical drives in RAID 0 and then one drive equal to the total size of the array. Like two 500GB drives in raid 0 and a 1tb for the +1 so you get backups and speed!
Sorry timma, but you can run single drive RAID0 arrays without issue.
Doing so is effectively the same as runninh in AHCI though, with the important disadvantage that you may
be unable to move your disk to another controller and read it properly - RAID mode will write additional metadata to the drive that defines the RAID properties, and this may not be compatibile with any other controller you may want to move the drive to in the future (although the vast majority of controllers will read each other's RAID0 arrays, things get less transportable with RAID5 etc though. It's also worth noting ALL the recent (last 8 years or so) of Intel's controllers will read each others RAID metadata too).
Also for RAID0+1 (and the better RAID10), you need 4 drives, you can't do it with 3 as you propose.
And RAID5 does not really have parity for corruption - it has it to protect against drive failure. The parity data can actually cause
corruption issues due to the way RAID5 deals with small writes. Running parity checks can help identify and mitigate issues due to bad sectors etc, but it's not something to rely on.