Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Abandon all Hope, all ye who voted here. (Score 1) 537 537

I'd say we need a revolution, but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.

I just don't know what to do anymore.

Your IP has been logged. Please remain calm, and await for the authorities in 5,4,3,2....

Comment: Re:Of course! And you never need more than 640K RA (Score 1) 373 373

Having RAID on the drive itself mostly defeats the purpose of RAID (excepting RAID 0, but even that has issues with this approach). RAID is best for combating downtime due to hardware failure. By sticking both "disks" of a RAID-1 on one drive, you have no recourse if one of those "disks" fails. You can't swap out half a drive to let it rebuild on a good 'disk'.

I was thinking more like RAID 5 or other models with redundancy, just in the same housing. HEY! don't be stealing my idea lol.

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer