Maybe time for a sanity check?
Trash's initial concerns about controller failure are extremely valid, and IMO, one of the best reasons to use software raid, and acknowledges the performance tradeoffs. I see nothing wrong with the initial premise, although if you've got a small enough data set to fit on a single disk (or can be easily split between disks), avoiding RAID entirely would be preferable, and then doing as Cory suggested with manually mirroring data between disks with retrospect, or file copies, or whatever you find easiest, is going to be a better solution. This is OS9 we're talking about, with HFS, which does have a tendency to eat the filesystem and lose data during power failures, OS hangs/crashes, or just whenever. That old HFS isn't journaled or anything, so putting all your eggs in one volume isn't that hot, even if the underlying storage is fault tolerant. And for that reason, probably the single best thing you could do for data safety is putting it on a more modern system.
Ok, I've got a lot to say about these statements, some of which was covered by Gorgonops, but mostly I can't reconcile it with the later statement:
The initial argument is don't do software raid because of performance, then recommending USB 1.1?
Trash's initial concerns about controller failure are extremely valid, and IMO, one of the best reasons to use software raid, and acknowledges the performance tradeoffs. I see nothing wrong with the initial premise, although if you've got a small enough data set to fit on a single disk (or can be easily split between disks), avoiding RAID entirely would be preferable, and then doing as Cory suggested with manually mirroring data between disks with retrospect, or file copies, or whatever you find easiest, is going to be a better solution. This is OS9 we're talking about, with HFS, which does have a tendency to eat the filesystem and lose data during power failures, OS hangs/crashes, or just whenever. That old HFS isn't journaled or anything, so putting all your eggs in one volume isn't that hot, even if the underlying storage is fault tolerant. And for that reason, probably the single best thing you could do for data safety is putting it on a more modern system.