[QUOTE]\nYeah, sure. I dont doubt that it can be faster. But it's also true that\nthey can be slower... when all the motherboards started coming out a\nwhile back with built in RAID controllers, people were going out and\nsetting up their RAID arrays and thinking how much faster it would be...\nbut those setups often just dont cut it (: They're OK for backup\npurposes I guess.[/QUOTE]\n\nI agree - RAID on the motherboard with no cache is a bad thing. In most\ncases they implemented a cheap RAID chipset and without the cache it's\nnot much better than an OS RAID, but it does offer performance benefits.\n\nMost people don't understand RAID, they think that RAID is always faster\nthan non-RAID, and that's just not always true. RAID 1 is almost as fast\nas a single drive for writes, but, can be faster than a single drive for\nreads since the data can be read from either drive. RAID 5 has poor\nwrite times, but great read times....\n\nIn most cases, for home users, and for people doing PS type work, a\nsimple MIRROR will save their butts in case of a hardware failure, but\nthat's about the only benefit - most of these users set the mirror up as\none large mirror, then partition it, and still think it's two drives for\npurposes of swap/temp space... They should have installed a single drive\nas a drive for swap/temp space and then they would have seen a\ndifference.