1) I use RAID 0 and have never expeirneced a problem... when using raid 0 you have double the disk speed(read/write,etc).2) if you are using raid 0 for gaming, etc use the highest stripe possible (64-128)... if using for a server use (16-32)here is a little more info about raid 0:RAID 0 advantages:RAID 0 performanceWhile the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive. For reads and writes that are smaller than the stripe size, such as database access, the drives will be able to seek independently. If the sectors accessed are spread evenly between the two drives, the apparent seek time of the array will be half that of a single drive (assuming the disks in the array have identical access time characteristics). The transfer speed of the array will be the transfer speed of all the disks added together, limited only by the speed of the RAID controller. Note that these performance scenarios are in the best case with optimal access patterns.RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.Another use is where the number of disks is limited by the operating system. In Microsoft Windows, the number of drives may be limited by the availability of drive letters. RAID 0 allows more disks to be used by combining them under a single letter. It is possible in Windows 2000 and newer to mount partitions under directories, thus eliminating the need for a partition to be assigned a drive letter.RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[2][3]RAID 0 disadvantages:RAID 0 failure rateAlthough RAID 0 was not specified in the original RAID paper, an idealized implementation of RAID 0 would split I/O operations into equal-sized blocks and spread them evenly across two disks. RAID 0 implementations with more than two disks are also possible, though the group reliability decreases with member size.Reliability of a given RAID 0 set is equal to the average reliability of each disk divided by the number of disks in the set: \mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{group}} \approx \frac{\mathrm{MTTF}_{\mathrm{disk}}}{\mathrm{number}}That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members — so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. In other words, the probability of a failure is roughly proportional to the number of members. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to Pr(at least one fails) = 1 - Pr(neither fails) = 1 - (1 - 0.05)^2 = 0.0975 = 9.75\,\%.The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools (see data recovery), however, these data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and recovery of drive data is very costly and not guaranteed.
