>>> Our policy is to simply say "ccd is useful only for building large,
>>> fast, striped volumes which are also fragile as hell" and recommend
>> define "fragile as hell"?  [...], I've _never_ had a problem with
>> any of my ccd's except in the case where one of the disks failed.

>> Since recovery from hardware failure isn't in the current
>> feature-set, I don't call that a fault.

>> Missing features does not equate to fragile.

> if one disk dies in a striped volume (a volume without parity) all is
> lost.  i would call that fragile.

I wouldn't, no more fragile than any other filesystem on a NetBSD
machine.  Lose a disk, lose what's on it; ccds make this worse only in
that they (potentially) make a filesystem depend on more than one disk.

In short, I agree with the double-quoted text above.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B