Doh! Let me try this again...sorry for the double post Brian.
Brian Leeper wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Francisco Jose Montilla wrote: > > > The reason is that on a master-slave setup, the slave disc is controlled > > by the master. If on a [hda-hdc]+[hdb-hdd] raid 0+1 the master device of > > *any* IDE controller fails, the slave will inmediatly fail also (I'd bet > > it surelly will happen if it's the slave who fails, so this statement > > could be widened to "if *any* disc fails"), rendering your raid 0+1 > > inmediatly unusable, and making recovery thougher. > > I'm not so sure about this, as I think I've seen IDE drives that were > jumpered as a slave (with no master on the bus) get detected by Linux > before. This is true, especially for CD-ROM drives, which I always configure as slave devices, even when they're the only thing on the channel. Also, IDE drives aren't on a controller, they ARE a controller -- Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) -- means each drive has it's own controller built in. I am not savvy enough to understand how the master/slave relationship works though, someone please educate me! :) -Ted
