Re: Oracle Performance on RAID 5

"Robert Hart" <rhart_at_gov.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:

]Recently a Vendor of some systems we use indicated
]that Oracle Performance on RAID5 hardware is poor
]for read and write compared to non-RAID. They stated
]that there have been some performance studies that
]support this statement.
]
]Can anyone support this statement? I find it hard
]to believe and thought it might be the configuration
]of there system.

I can't agree that the performance is poor. I can agree that RAID5 writes are slower, but not that that alone provides poor performance. Paying the extra money for disks to mirror your database will shorten the time it takes to do writes, but may not improve overall performance; or it may make things faster, but if you haven't got a problem with RAID5, why pay the money to go to something faster that you don't need?

I found I got acceptable performance by having on-line redo and rbs mirrored and the database and archive areas RAID5. Things could be sped up by mirroring the database and at times the archive areas, but it's not worth the money since we dont have a performance problem.

--

 ,-,_|\   George Dau,                                             __
/    * \  Unix (Solaris, DEC Unix, Linux), Oracle, Internet.     (OO)
\_,--\_/  Home: gedau_at_pobox.com      Work: gedau_at_isa.mim.com.au ( \/ )
      v   WWW:  http://pobox.com/~gedau                          W--W