Re: RAID: 0, 3, or 5?

 I have used RAID 0+1 and it has worked quite well. As a matter of fact the speed in combination with VXFS and VXVM is almost as good as raw volumes. Oracle also likes the balance this combo gives, since the round robin method assures that Oracle gets the faster device for read or write. The only drawback is cost, you pay  more than raid 5 since you lose storage capacity from your devices.. however I find the cost to offset the gains you get in performance to be worth it... now if you do this on raw, it can be quite faster I assume.

-chris

In comp.databases.oracle Christoph Torlinsky <ctorlins_at_crl4.crl.com> wrote:
: In comp.databases.oracle ltost_at_systemautomation.com wrote:
: : Unfortunately, our RAID box can only implement RAID levels 0, 3, or 5.
: : We'll be running on an RS/6000 under AIX 4.2 (3.2 for now). The RAID unit
: : is a Box Hill 530. I'm not sure how many or how big the disks are right
: : now. I was planning on having it configured into RAID 0+1, 1 and possibly
: : 5 (since we do have much read only or at least write rarely data).
 

: : Would anyone care to make any recommendations? What about RAID 0 for the
: : redo logs, and control files? I could mirror them using Oracle, correct?
: : But what about rollback and data? Level 0 is no good for that, right? I
: : hear awful things about level 3 and level 5 has crappy write performance.
 

: : Any responses would be appreciated... we're going to have to configure
: : this thing tomorrow (we've put it off long enough). So the sooner the
: : better for any responses.
 

: : Thanks.
 

: : /------------------------------------------------------------------
: : ltost_at_systemautomation.com
 

: : ** The views above do not necessarily reflect those of my employer!
 

: : -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: : http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Received on Thu Jun 26 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT