From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Kropelin Subject: Re: Linux: Why software RAID? Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:36:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20060824093616.K30362@mail.kroptech.com> References: <20060824090741.J30362@mail.kroptech.com> <1156425650.3007.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1156425650.3007.140.camel@localhost.localdomain>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:20:50PM +0100 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel , Linux RAID Mailing List , marc@perkel.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:20:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Ar Iau, 2006-08-24 am 09:07 -0400, ysgrifennodd Adam Kropelin: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > with sw RAID of course if the builder is careful to use multiple PCI > > cards, etc. Sw RAID over your motherboard's onboard controllers leaves > > you vulnerable. > > Generally speaking the channels on onboard ATA are independant with any > vaguely modern card. Ahh, I did not know that. Does this apply to master/slave connections on the same PATA cable as well? I know zero about PATA, but I assumed from the terminology that master and slave needed to cooperate rather closely. > And for newer systems well the motherboard tends to > be festooned with random SATA controllers, all separate! And how. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a half-dozen ATA ports these days. And most of them are those infuriatingly insecure SATA connectors that pop off when you look at them cross-eyed... --Adam