Nice response, Tim...although I seem to have become the "target" of the
info, rather than the OP. Nevertheless, I always learn something, and
appreciate *anyone's* thoughts.

I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to add an opinion.
(Naturally this is based upon my OWN adventures.)

If you create a striped array with two identical drives (+see note below+)
then you will be enjoying very decent performance. But, yes, you are at
greater risk of data loss. My suggestion is to get the array running
nicely, and then create a cloned image on a THIRD drive [which is outside
the array]. Then, in the event of a failure on one of the RAIDed drives,
you can replace the failed drive, (recreate the array) and restore the
cloned image.

Unfortunately, drives are like light bulbs; they can last for years &
years...or fail after 500 hours. You never know. And unfortunately
SMART-type sentries are not yet 100% reliable. So you have to weigh the
odds; how long will it be before one of two RAIDed drives fails? Six
months? Three years? I would suggest that the odds favour the latter.
Regardless, if you set it up as a mirror, you will be *without* the RAID0
advantage for all of the time that passes UNTIL a drive fails. I think that
a concientious backup program is sufficient "insurance" to warrant risking a
striped array. Heck - you could even create an image on TWO separate
[non-RAIDed] drives...and/or on an *external* drive, if that makes you feel
any safer!

Admittedly, it can get a bit silly. You have to balance these things. In
any case, it's always interesting to hear the logic that people employ
during these musings. (So, Scotter - please let us know, OK?)

Happy New Year, gentlemen.
Ron