Re: RAID Level 5 and RedoLog-Files

In article <5c8q3f$ah1_at_nntp.interaccess.com>, Michael Yakus <yakus_at_interaccess.com> writes
>"Helmut Hahn" <hhahn_at_tmt.de> wrote:
>
>>We plan to set up an Database for a universal research center on NT4.0 with
>>RAID 5.
 
>>The question is how such a RAID should be configuered. Must RedoLogFiles be
>>holded twice or more, or is it sure enough to reley on the RAID system and
>>setting up only one.
 

>>Or should the RAID be configuered to act like two seperate devices and set
>>up two LogFiles and having the chance to divide up the Tablespaces on these
>>devices for performance issues?
>
>Since RAID-5 suffers a large write performance hit, it would
>probably be better to implement Oracle mirrored redo logs to
>ordinary disks than to use RAID-5 disks since these are updated
>so frequently.
>

Is the performance hit from RAID-5 still worse than writing everything twice to two separate disks?

-- 
Jim Smith