> will the same people be advocating that we must refer to main in HDDs that are in a RAID configuration? Are drives commonly referred to as master/slave in th

> will the same people be advocating that we must refer to main in HDDs that are in a RAID configuration? Are drives commonly referred to as master/slave in that context? With the exception of when hot spares are present the drives in each array are considered equal (unless perhaps you have some arrangement where all parity information is on a subset of the drives). Maybe during the initial build process if you are converting a single drive to an array (for instance by adding a mirror to convert to RAID1) you might call the original drive the master, but this is in the context of a master tape rather than a master/slave allusion and even then I think I would have naturally called it the "source" drive instead. The last time I remember referring to a drive as "master" was back when pre-SATA drive interfaces where dominant and you had up to two drives per interface cable.