Definition of RAID

[Stephen Ward]

xp does do s/w raid but I prefer h/w too it is much more reliable and 
not dependent on the system at all.  I don't think it would do raid for 
the system drive but I couldn't swear to that.

Unfortunately my job requires me to use windows for the odd thing or two.

Vincent Trouilliez wrote:

>>Personally, I chose software RAID and didn't even bother with hardware RAID.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't understand how RAID 0 can be done in S/W ?
>If Linux handles it, then I guess it done at the kernel level, or just
>above ?
>But to me it's a chicken and egg situation... to load the kernel file,
>you need all the bits of the file, but the bits are spread over two (or
>more) disks, and you can't put the bits together into a meaningful file
>until said file/kernel has be executed.
>
>I cna understand how Raid 1 is different, it's just a mirror, so you can
>load the kernel from either disk. But raid O.... I don't get it. :-/
>
>Also, how much CPU load does handling the array require ?
>
>More importantly, how to trust S/W for this highly sensitive low-level
>I/O stuff like RAID 0 ? I anything goes wrong in the system (program
>crashing or otherwise misbehaving, bugged etc), how that might impact
>the RAID driver ? If a program misbehaves, anything can happen, and if
>it affects the RAID driver in whatever way, it could cause it to
>ruin/corrupt all your data in a micro second, horror ! :o(((
>
>To me,  H/W controller = simplicity (from the OS/user side) +
>performance + PEACE OF MIND (the most important !! :o)
>
>At least, people have the choice. I don't think Windows XP would let you
>do S/W RAID would it ?.... long live Linux :o)
>
>
>Vince
>
>
>  
>