Re: Configuring disks on a Windows 2000 server?

Hello Paul

ALL our oracle servers are windows NT/2000 with raid 5 arrays for all the files.

1. The point that Oracle does not support online redo logs on stripped partition seems wrong to me.
2. There was a discussion on the list a while ago about the write speed times between raid 5 and raid 0+1.

Anyway, since raid 5 are usually implemented with a big controller cache (backed up by a battery) your database writes to the cache and you get reasonable response time. We have a heavy online application with about 50 users that runs OK on windows NT with 2 processor and 5 disks raid 5 array.

Yechiel Adar
Mehish
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:03 PM

> Hi all,
>
> A 3rd-party software vendor is coming in to install their application on a
> new Windows 2000 server. This application uses Oracle, so they'll also be
> installing Oracle 8.1.7 as part of their setup session. However, they've
> sent our server/hardware guys the following, specifying how they want the
> disks configuring on the server:
>
> - - - - -
> "As to the RAID recommendations the issue is that Oracle do not support
> installations where the redo logs are on any sort of a stripped partition.
> My recommendation would be to create a mirror pair out of two of the
disks.
> This can be partitioned for the system and the redo logs. The remainder of
> the disks can be RAID 5. Note that the RAID 5 array is where the actual
> database and archive logs are stored. In theory If you lose both disks on
> the mirror you would still have enough information on the RAID 5 partition
> to save the database."
> - - - - -
>
> Now, disk configuration's one of my weakest spots, but I have the
following
> two questions about their instructions:
>
> 1. Is their point about Oracle not supporting redo logs on striped
> partitions true, or are they talking rubbish? All our UNIX servers with
> Oracle use RAID 0+1 (mirroring plus striping) on all their disks, but is
it
> different for Windows servers? I must say I'd never heard of this
> restriction before, but I'm willing to be enlightened! Anybody?
>
> 2. They're recommending RAID 5 for a transaction-heavy application server,
> here. Surely that's wrong? I thought I understood that RAID 5 was great
for
> file servers but lousy for servers running transactio-heavy business
> applications. What's the view of you guys on this?
>
> Please give me your views, I know we have some very experienced people on
> this list!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul
> --
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> --
> Author: Paul Vincent
> INET: Paul.Vincent_at_uce.ac.uk
>
> Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
> San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Yechiel Adar
  INET: adar76_at_inter.net.il

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).