Raid 0 is thebest thing when you work this way.
1.- You want/need fast speed on read/write task (like compiling a project with more than one million small files)
2.- Before you power off the PC you allways do a BackUp on external media
Why all people say if one disk of the array all data is lost? That is totally false if you have all in a BackUP.
What you loose is the access to the information stored on the array in normal access (forensic access may be able to recover some parts).
Raid X must not be used (never ever) as a BackUP replacement, so loosing the Array just because all disks fail at same time can happen (and sometimes happens), so any one using Raid (any level) still need to have BackUPs.
I allways do this (with Linux, not Windows, i will tell why not Windows later): Use three disks (max that my motherboard can, two Sata and one Pata) in Raid 0,then i partition the raid 0 for Linux root, another for Swap (only 2GiB of RAM, max motherboard can handle) and another for my data... and alwways have a BackUP on 5 external (USB) devices (Pendrives, DVD, HDD, etc.).
So if anything goes bad with any internal disk, i just replace it wit a new one, recreate the Raid and partitions and put back all data (OS files, boot, my data, etc)... just a few minutes... and ON again.
Gain: i triple the speed of all disks access... my motherboard is Sata I, and i get 80MiB/s of each of my disks (great considering 80MiB/s from Pata one is near the top).
On the Pata part i do have only one device (my motherboard reduces a lot the bandwith if i put two devices on same port, like HDD Master and DVD Slave, also it reduces the speed if i put two devices one on each port like HDD Master port 0 and DVD Master port 1, it seems absurd but it shares the bandwith between both ports), so i use the DVD onto an external USB enclosure (it allows to boot from such).
Now why on Linux and not on Windows?
My motherboard has no Raid capabilities, so Windows will never ever boot from Raid 0 without hardware assist, no mather if it is a ful Hardware Raid or just a Fake Raid, you need some hardware raid controller to get Windows boot from Raid0... the counter part, or just the opposite with Linux.
On Linux you can Boot from any kind of Raid, also ZFS... and you also can have grub.cfg file inside a Raid 0, and boot from that (grub stage need to know about lvm, etc, that can be if when install-grub2 you tell it to pre-load lvm module)... and also more... grub2 can boot with its files residing on an encrypted (LUKS) over another encrypted ... and so on as many levels you want, each with its own passphrase, algorithm etc, and on top of that or in the middle or on multiple points you can LVM (Raid) as you want... you can make it as complex as you want... also it allows you to use internal and external USB devices as parts, etc.
Windows is very limited, and on Windows Side (pure software without hardware) it needs all the disks to be Dynamic (not Basic) so you can not boot from them.
To make Windows boot device be Raid 0 it is mandatory to have hardware raid (pure 100% or just fake raid).
Also VHD/VHDX can not be Dynamic if you plan to boot Windows from inside them over real hardware (no virtual machine)... so again, no way...
Now i have two SSD that can write at >500MiB/s (tested on a friends Sata III Motherboard) the Pata part (Only giving 96 MiB/S) would look like a bottle neck, i only get 137 MiB/s on each Sata I port, so 137+137+96 would be 370... wrong... on Raid 0 it would be 3* slowest so, 3* 96 = 282, so using only two Sata i get 2*137=274, the gain of using that Pata SSD (using Sata to Pata adapter of course) is very near to 282, so i will stay only using two Sata and on BIOS disable the Pata ports... and surprise...
After disabling Pata ports, i got 146MIB/s on each Sata port... who knows why that increase? So 2*146=292 more than 282 i got when using three disks.
So i must say to all... test and test, and try absurd things on such test... like disabling Pata ports make Sata ports be a little faster.
But for Windows... Raid 0 on boot drive needs hardware raid, Raid 0 on dada disks that do not have boot nor system partitions can be done from disk managment.
So if you have three or more disks and Windows... one disk for Boot and System as Basic disk, and the rest make them Raid 0.
I do not understand why Raid 1 or Raid 5 on anything that is not server like (where you need zero down time)... Any Raid level does not avoid the need for BackUP, and if you BackUP all why do you need any level of Raid, except Raid 0?
For developers, etc (not servers) if disks fails, you can have plenty of time (one day or two) to restore all... and with a good clones of the system, a good BackUP of your data, andhaving on a desk another disk you can be ON in less than a few hours (power down pc, replace damaged disk, restore the Raid configuration, restore System, restore data from BackUP).
Anything not needed zero down time, just use Raid0 and ensure BackUPs are not forget to be done.
One more point... (i learn it the hard way)... with Windows... i save a text file (or a lot of them) on a NORMAL NTFS partition, i still work with other folders on that partition for some hours, i read such files some hours later... then i shutdown Windows normally, no warning, no signal anything goes wrong... next day i read that files and some of them were likesome days ago, did not reflect what was written and readed after... like if the file has gone to an old point in time... i lost part of my work... very weird, but happend to me three times... you think and you see data is saved on the files, after a reboot you see it really was not.
It is a BIG BUG telated to how Windows caches writes to disk and how NTFS journaling is very bad implemented... so i never ever trust Windows again... prior to reboot i do a BackUP on external media (USB pendrives, encrypted HDD with VeraCrypt, etc... where write cache is not managed by Windows itself) and then i force a Flush (VeraCrypt unmount) and a Windows eject USB, then i re-plug it and confirm (Bit2Bit) all data is identical... then Safe eject again USB, reboot or powedown.
At next boot i re-test again external BackUP... and sometimes find that:
1.-Files that was written to internal non Raid NTFS that were copied to external USB are OK on external USB
2.-Such files are in an OLD state on internal disk, so i must recover the new version from USB
It is really absurd... but the BUG caused this:
1.-Data is asked to be written to a file, write cache is ON, data is on RAM, never goes to disk (the BUG)
2.-You read the file (from RAM since it is on cache), never read again from disk
3.-You shutdown the Windows, RAM cache is not written to disk (the BUG)
so next time file is readed, it has data on an old state.
Whatis really weird... i never ever see that BUG if NTFS partition is over a Windows Software Raid0... but if it is a Normal NTFS over a Basic Disk, it happens on Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 (version 1709 not jet seen, not enough time since updated to it)... it happens me near three times per year and been a developer is a total pain when happens.... fixed BUGs on source code reappears, etc.... till i follow theese steps:
1.-BackUP prior to shutdown over USB with no write cache on that device (using 7-Zip to compress and pack the >million small files onto a Big one).
2.-Safe eject USb
3.-Shutdown, reboot, etc
4.-On next boot, first thing i do is consider all data on internal disk can be on an old state... so i restore from USB all data.
Now i am sure that windows BUG will not affect me again.
Since all that is a total loose of time and be not sure what was really saved i migrated to a mix solution Windows over VirtualBOX over Linux over Linux software Raid 0.
I start Linux, the VirtualBOX, then Windows... and on it i disable write cache on all disks... Linux cache is much better and i never see a similar BUG on LInux.
Linux OS is over Raid 0, VirtualBOX uses files as Virtual Disks (one for system, one for my projects, etc), each are over Linux Software Raid 0.
I gain in no pain about Windows not writting data (BUG of write cache ON) sice write cache inside Windows is OFF on all partitions Windows see.
I gain Linux RAID 0 speed and Linux disk cache, for both, Windows System and Windows data virtual disks.
I gain a lot of time... saving a 32GiB each day to USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10Gib/s, >1GiB/s) is done in less than a minute (in a Sata III motherboard) and in Sata I motherboard it is 32GiB/(2*146)=112 seconds (a little bit more than two minutes).
So Backuping all Windows and data tooks me lees than three minutes a day... so why not Raid 0? If i loose all it tooks me less than three minutes to restore such files... not counting Linux clone restore (that is about 20 minutes), 10 to replace hard disk, 5 to boot into a Live distro and five to recreate the Raid 0 and Linux clone restore.
So if one disk fails, i only need less than a half hour to be working again... and that at a cost of less than three minutes per day (for BackUP)... and BackUP day is a must, no matterwhatRaid you use, no matter if it is ZFS, etc.
There is allways the chance of human error, what if you delete the wrong folder? etc... BackUPs are the top most important thing to have when something goes really wrong.
And better to have historical BackUPs, notjustthelast state.
Having a really good BackUP habbits, Raid 0 is a really improvement with zero lost risks (you have BackUPs so data is lost from Raid array but not from your BackUP).