I'm asking this because, unlike HDDs, the main lifetime limiting factor of an SSD is write cycles. By using RAID 0, it's effectively doubling the amount of write cycles usable, and theoretically should be more reliable with that. In practice, is it about the same?

I'm asking this because, unlike HDDs, the main lifetime limiting factor of an SSD is write cycles. By using RAID 0, it's effectively doubling the amount of write cycles usable, and theoretically should be more reliable with that. In practice, is it about the same?

EDIT: I do realise that in a RAID 0 setup, if one drive fails, all data is lost. However, this is mainly applicable in a RAID setup with traditional, mechanical Hard Drives, which can randomly fail at pretty much any stage of its life, but especially when its older, and are subject to damage caused by movement of the drive, etc. HDDs are obviously more prone to damage. However, I'm not talking about traditional Hard Drives. And what is the limiting factor of an SSD? Write cycles! In which, in a RAID 0 setup, each SSD is hit with HALF of the writes. Compared to having just one, or in a RAID 1 setup, in which all SSDs are hit with the FULL amount of write cycles, which would lessen the lifespan of an SSD, similarly to the reason why you should never defrag an SSD (but should trim). In theory, a RAID0 setup with SSDs, and only SSDs, should not only perform better but be more reliable. Because, in theory, it almost certainly should be. I'm not sure of any other limiting factors of SSDs except for reads potentially (which also would be reduced by a RAID 0 setup), but all of the comments on this post so far are completely dodging my question. This is my theory on RAID 0 with SSDs, backed up with the basic workings of an SSD compared to a Hard Drive, and how SSDs fail. I'm asking if, in practice, this would actually benefit. I'm probably going to ask the LTT forums because I know they actually know how to answer a simple yes or no question.