Re: RAID 5 or 5 hard disks?

From: Sybrand Bakker <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:28:23 +0100
Message-ID: <90ol0s$1qcsm$4@ID-62141.news.dfncis.de>

You need at least 4 disks to compensate for the write penalty on RAID-5. Also online redo log files and archive log files shouldn't reside on a RAID-5 array.
I would go for 5 disks.

Regards,

Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA

"Allen" <allenh_at_starbase.neosoft.com> wrote in message news:BD71F762829CE2EA.D22E5AC688FEA19C.C4951E8FAF1A6749_at_lp.airnews.net...
>
> I've always installed my databases with indexes on one HD, RBS on another,
> etc.. now I'm in a new environment where they want to use a Raid 5 disk
> box that will have all my datafiles in the same volume. Supposedly the
> RAID stuff will take care of spreading out the files on different HDs.
> Is this cool, or should I still insist on several different HDs within the
> Raid 5 environment?
>
> thx.. Allen
Received on Thu Dec 07 2000 - 11:28:23 CST