Oracle-L: Re: FW: SAN configuration for Banner

From: <Jared.Still_at_radisys.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:00:14 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.005D7321.20031119150014@fatcity.com>

Paul, just curious why RAID 01 rather than RAID 10.

RAID 10 is much more resistant to disk failures that RAID 01.

10 drives in a RAID 01 with drives having a MTBF of say 100,000 hours.
( don't know if the 100k is low or high )

Each stripe in the RAID 01 has a MTBF of 20k hours, which is 10k hours for the array as a whole.

In a RAID 10 each mirrored pair would have an MTBF of 50k hours, which also appears to give an MTBF of 10k hours, but this is where statistics are misleading.

Lose one drive on each side of the RAID01 and is down.

The RAID 10 could lose 5 up to drives, as long as each failure is only one side of a mirrored pair, and still stay up.

Even more beneficial, in the RAID 01 if you lose on drive, you will lose 50% of read throughput.

Losing a single drive in the RAID 10 will cost you about 10% throughput.

If Matthew Zito is still here, he can no doubt enlighten us with no end of detail on the subject.

Jared

Paul Drake <discgolfdba_at_yahoo.com>
Sent by: ml-errors_at_fatcity.com
11/19/2003 12:20 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L

        To:     Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: FW: SAN configuration for Banner

Sam,

Dell was perfectly happy to configure the following for me on a CX200 unit:
(2 trays of 15 drives, 1 tray 36 GB 15K, 1 tray 73 GB 10K, 1 hot spare per
tray)

3 x RAID 1 for online redo logs (members a,b,c, 6 drives total) 2 x RAID 01 for datafiles (8 drives each, 16 drives total) 1 x RAID 1 for archlogs (2 drives)
1 x RAID 01 for undo (4 drives)

we used less than half of the available storage, saving that for when another system is migrated to this unit. when creating filesystems, we did not format the entire RAID vols for live files, and created filesystems for storing local backup sets.

You will like having datafiles on 8 drive RAID 01 (or RAID 10) volumes. RMAN backups fly like you would not believe.

hth.

Paul

Sam Bootsma <sbootsma_at_gbrownc.on.ca> wrote: Hi List,

We are approaching the cusp of a decision on how to store Oracle data files on our SAN. We don't have the SAN yet, but it is due to arrive any week (if not any day).

I passed Cary's "Is RAID 5 Really a Bargain?" paper to our Sys Admin, which he read and succinctly summarized for the Technical Manager here. I have also read through a couple of papers referenced in the BAARF site. The Sys Admin comments were:

Dell would like to know what RAID mode we want configured on the SAN for the B80 and 6C4 computers. Sam has told me that, in the Oracle community, mirroring (RAID1) is preferred over RAID 5 for various reasons (RAID5 is: more costly for write-intensive applications, 3 times more likely to incur data loss, suffers from massive performance degradation during partial outages). RAID1 will be more costly per unit of usable storage. Mirroring seems to be the best choice. Let me know what you think.

Here is the Manager's response:

Any suggestions on how I can counter points 4 and 5 ? and the last point before his "Thanks" line? Currently we have two B80's (AIX 4.3.3) set up in a HA configuration. They share an external disk array. So if a hardware component in the primary box fails, then it will automatically failover to the secondary box (and at the same time, the secondary box takes control of the external disk array). I think the clustering term in point (4) is referring to this setup.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Sam.

Sent: November 18, 2003 5:08 PM

All the points are valid...however..my thought processes were as follows:

The System & Core Application disks are resident on the disks within the CPU and Mirrorred (Everyone OK with that I think)
The Databases are Resident on the SAN
The SAN disks are RAID 5 as the provide more usable space for the cost as compared to mirrorring
As the IBM Systems (B80's & 6C4's) are clusterd thus effectivley Mirrors the RAID 5 Arrays mitigating the issues Sam raises re preformance degradation (which will only ever arise in the event of a failed disk/automated rebuild which is usually configurable to address performance degradation)
Write to Disk/Commit to Database should be a background process
(although I recognise this is a transaction/write intensive based system)

This is a standard model that all servers are being deployed with and unless there are any specific technical reasons why this will not work it is the way I would like to see the systems implemented. Remeber, with the SAN...Reconfiguration of Disks is not a large issue anymore if required in the future.

Although not an AIX/Oracle guy...I disagree with the statement that RAID5 is 3 times more susceptable to incur Data Loss. RAID 5 is a proven technology

Thanks..... Andrew

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tue 18/11/2003 2:56 PM
To: Andrew Riem
Subject: SAN configuration for Banner

Carl
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: 
  INET: Jared.Still_at_radisys.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 Wed Nov 19 2003 - 17:00:14 CST