Re: Caching RAID controllers versus non-cached RAID

I'd only ever use a 'write-through' cache, or a system with heavy, localised power supplies and much redundancy (like EMC Symmetrix) for the cache subsystem. If that caches goes down, your database is potentially corrupted.

Just my take, and I'd be interested to know the opinion of others on this matter.

MotoX.

rcbelanger_at_my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6ndi4s$7lg$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hello:
>
>I am working on a Sun server configuration for Oracle 8.0.3 and am
considering
>two RAID alternatives. One is a Sun SPARCStorage A5000 array with about 48
GB
>of raw storage and no cache, the other is a Winchester systems RAID array
with
>about 128 MB of cache and about the same raw storage.
>
>I have used Oracle and Sybase before on caching RAID arrays with great
>results - the cache more than makes up for the RAID 5 write penalty, but
the
>read performance and raw throughput of the Sun A5000 are impressive. I am
>also considering a paralle server configuration down the road and the
>multi-hosting capabilities of the A5000 with FibreChannel seem to be much
>better than the Ultra SCSI options.
>
>I have considered other RAID arrays like EMC and the Sun A7000 that are
>multi-hosted and cached, but the price points are a little high for me.
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Rich
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Received on Thu Jul 02 1998 - 02:27:02 CDT