Stuart Henderson wrote:

quoted text
>

>  It wouldn't be more likely that the disk _crashes_ by doing this,

>  and it may give _some_ protection against _some_ failure modes.

>  It also gives new and exciting ones to take their place.

Actually, since you'd be mirroring to two different portions of the

same disk (assuming a non-flash device), chances are you would be more

likely to crash.
 1) You'll be running more code.  More code more bugs.
 2) You'll be writing everything to two parts of the same disk, making

    the disk continuously seek 1/2 a disk distance.  Likely not something

    you want to promote.
-Toby.

--

 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax