Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Raid 50

RE: Raid 50

From: Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:05:53 -0400
Message-ID: <KNEIIDHFLNJDHOOCFCDKKEOOEPAA.mwf@rsiz.com>


Basically it means that it takes no more than 3 drive failures per 21 disk set to actually fail the array (configurations may vary) as opposed to 2 of 5 for raid 5 or 2 of 2 for raid 1. I don't know whether this is an officially recognized RAID nomenclature, and I believe it is a marketing attempt to convince people that the i/o pitfalls of raid 5 can be somewhat ameliorated by using more disks "simultaneously." I'm not talking about continuing operations in "damaged" mode, I'm talking about failing. As with raid 5, any single disk failure will incur parity reconstruction of some type for the affected raid, so by typically ganging together more disks per raid group, your chances of running in "damaged" mode increases.

I must admit that I have not tested it, since just based on the description I concluded that it had all the significant potential performance problems of raid 5 combined with increased risk.

I would love to hear performance data on using raid 50 with Oracle, especially if the i/o profile included the knee curve when you approach steady state cache overrun, and at what generation rate of redo logs or some other transaction metric you reach the knee curve. If someone supplies this, please note your array configuration, since I think "RAID 50" specifications vary considerably.

Google of "RAID 50" will get you quite a few sites. Apparently it is a pretty big hit for static gaming data.

(Short answer: Ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Make like Brave Sir Robin, but try not to rust your armor while running away!)

mwf

-----Original Message-----

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of David Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:40 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Raid 50

I am well aware of the pros and cons of RAID 0, 1, 0+1, 1+0(raid 10), 5, etc.
But, here is a new one on me...RAID 50.

Thoughts, experience...please elaborate asI just found out it's our RAC IO backend.
--

..
David



Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html


Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
Received on Tue Jul 06 2004 - 16:02:31 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US