[dangrossman]

It's not something I look for, that's how manufacturers are starting to sell large SSDs in laptops. They're soldered to the motherboard, and doubled up in hardware RAID. It's about wear levelling so that they last, not performance. The failure modes of an SSD aren't the same as spinning disks; RAID 0 is less risky, not more risky AFAIK.

[Derbasti]

RAID-0 still breaks if either disk breaks, thus doubling your potential for failure.

[dangrossman]

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that SSDs are just a series of flash memory chips that add up to the capacity you're sold, plus some extra to use when cells go bad.

If you buy a 256GB SSD, you're probably buying 8 32GB chips and a controller.

Here, you're buying 16 instead of 8 chips, but two controllers. So they call it "two drives in RAID-0", but it's very little different from one SSD.

It's not 16 times more likely to fail; I think the annual SSD failure rate is about 30% that of a spinning disk. Even if the double controllers means a double failure rate, it's still statistically more reliable than a single new spinning disk.