>It's not redundant anymore? It doesn't provide mirroring or parity? It >doesn't reduce the MTBF? All those assumptions are wrong?
I know it is tough to change with the times. There are many ways to be "redundant". The way RAID provides it is probably the least useful. I already explained why mirroring is not useful. Parity can be provided many different ways. The way RAID does it adds complexity and increases the possible modes of failure. RAID increases the probability of failure. Two drives are more likely to fail than one drive. Add to that the complexity of a RAID controller and the probability of failure increases further. But the problem with RAID is more than that, RAID can complicate recovery when a failure does occur. >A primer to help you understand how RAID works and why. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID Read the section there on "Problems with RAID." It doesn't list all the problems with RAID, but it is a good start. Unfortunately it is tersely written so you have to think hard about it to realize how serious these problems really are. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
