It's much easier for the CTO and CIO to understand something like RAC
(You won't lose your application) than "we need more disks to do RAID
10 instead of RAID 5 because the performance etc is better"
I think I'm going to work on a paper on "reality checks" :)
- Mogens_Nørgaard <mln_at_miracleas.dk> wrote:
> Good points. When I read your arguments I couldn't help smiling
> because
> I saw the headline of this thread at the same time. If this is the
> time
> for doing without, isn't it funny that people invest in RAC? Heh-heh.
>
> Mogens
>
> Rachel Carmichael wrote:
>
> >Here's the thing. Disks are cheap. Maybe. But buying 5 disks is
> still
> >cheaper than buying 10 disks. And it is NOT the people who actually
> >work with the disks (DBAs, Sysadmins, even developers) who have the
> >authority to order the disks.
> >
> >You need places and floor space to put the disks as well. It's not
> like
> >you can just hang them from the ceiling.
> >
> >And even more so these days, and it seems most especially in the US
> >companies, companies are trying to cut costs to the bone (we just
> went
> >through an exercise where we practically had to jump through hoops
> just
> >to get more memory for a production system which obviously needed
> the
> >memory). And cutting costs means as few disks as possible, means
> reuse,
> >consolidate and do without.
> >
> >It kind of reminds me of one of the sayings my parents (who grew up
> >during the Great Depression here) have told me of that time: "use
> it
> >up, make it do, or do without"
> >
> >we're in the "do without" phase
> >
> >Rachel
> >--- Mogens_Nørgaard <mln_at_miracleas.dk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm beginning to think that we're having this wonderful discussion
> >>about
> >>RAID-5 time and again because the vendors keep coming up with
> >>arguments
> >>to prove that the general laws of nature don't apply to this
> >>particular
> >>technology.
> >>
> >>In the 50s we had a prime minister here in Denmark that said to the
>
> >>assembled parliament: "If that's the facts, then I deny the facts".
>
> >>Somehow you have to admire a guy like that.
> >>
> >>Since disks are now cheap, how on Earth is it that we allow various
>
> >>IO-vendors to bundle cheap disks, expensive cache which we won't
> >>need,
> >>and stupid technologies like RAID-5 into a box called SAN/NAS or
> >>whatever and charge 42 billion units of some real currency for it?
> >>
> >>Why don't we take our swords and shotguns and AK-74s (that's the
> >>small
> >>calibre), and point them at them until they actually just bundle a
> >>bunch
> >>of inexpensive disks into RAID 1+0 which we ALL know is superior to
>
> >>RAID-S, RAID-5 (notice how S looks like 5 - it's no coincidence).
> >>It's
> >>superior to RAID 0+1 even. It doesn't require (the expensive) cache
> >>either.
> >>
> >>One of my wonderful experiences was with a TelCo here, where the
> >>vendor
> >>kept saying that they should of course just add cache if
> performance
> >>wasn't sufficient. When they finally reached the 32GB (yep,
> >>thirty-two
> >>giga-bytes) of cache alone, they gave up, ripped the stuff apart
> and
> >>reconfigured it as RAID 0+1 and it finally performed on the small
> >>writes. We all loved it - except possibly the disk-vendor, who kept
>
> >>saying RAID-<some letter that resembles the number 5> was of course
>
> >>fantastic, and that they shouldn't listen to all these bitter, old,
>
> >>twisted Oracle people who just hated RAID-5 and the likes ...
> ahhh...
> >>
> >>just because!
> >>
> >>It's got nothing to do with Oracle or not. It's got to do with
> money
> >>and
> >>brains.
> >>
> >>RAID 1+0 is the best you can buy.
> >>RAID 0+1 is almost as good.
> >>RAID 5 sucks - in all its disguises and permutations - compared to
> >>0+1
> >>or 1+0.
> >>
> >>If RAID-5 is good enough for you, fine. But remember to test the
> >>good,
> >>old restore of the backup and time it so that you're prepared if it
>
> >>happens. It should of course take about four times as long as the
> >>backup.
> >>
> >>As Connor said (and Cary has said it in his excellent, but futile,
> >>RAID-5 paper) it's when you really, really need disk performance
> that
> >>
> >>RAID-5 will let you down.
> >>
> >>Yo.
> >>
> >>Mogens
> >>
> >>Arun Annamalai wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi George.
> >>>
> >>>I would recommend go with Raid 5 and its not that one transaction
> >>>triggers that many writes as you have mentioned/calculated.
> >>>It is all buffered with recovery mechanism.
> >>>
> >>>Have you thought about Raid4(Network appliance) hardware. (I am no
> >>>
> >>>
> >>way
> >>
> >>
> >>>affliated with Network appliance, except that we use in our site.)
> >>>Most of the big names use them, such as
> >>>1, Yahoo. (you can see network appliance logo when you logout of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>your
> >>
> >>
> >>>yahoo email account)
> >>>2. Oracle
> >>>3. Southwest airlines.
> >>>
> >>>I mean Yahoo, Southwest Airlnes are all heavy transaction oriented
>
> >>>shop on a given per minute interval.
> >>>The most common overhead of SAN is that the throughput of the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>switch
> >>
> >>
> >>>that connects your server to the san storage.
> >>>
> >>>Also, heard that Net App (best in NAS) is colloborating with
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hitachi
> >>
> >>
> >>>(best in SAN storage) to get the best technology for storage and
> >>>thoroughput performance. But this might take a while or might
> >>>
> >>>
> >>already
> >>
> >>
> >>>be in the market. Check out with your local Hitachi or Netapp
> >>>representatives.
> >>>
> >>>Hope this helps.
> >>>-Arun.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: George.Leonard_at_za.didata.com
> >>> <mailto:George.Leonard_at_za.didata.com>
> >>> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> >>> <mailto:ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:06 AM
> >>> Subject: Sizing - RAC, storage subsystem EMC
> >>>
> >>> Hi all, hope you can give some input ideas.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am in the process of designing a system for a client of ours
> >>>
> >>>
> >>for
> >>
> >>
> >>> a proposal
> >>>
>
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Rachel Carmichael
INET: wisernet100_at_yahoo.com
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).
Received on Sat May 24 2003 - 08:41:40 CDT
