MotoX wrote:
>
> Chris Pitzel wrote in message <361A8727.3D086DC4_at_nospam.usask.ca>...
> >satar_at_my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> What's wrong with 9GB drives? we don't know his situation, he might need
9GB
> >> drives because his APPLICATION_DATA Tablespace might/will be 6GB. I am
not a
> >> NT system Admin, so I cannot comment on NT's mirroring.
> >
> >A single 9 gig drive cannot support nearly the same I/O load as a pair
> >of 3 4.5gig drives in RAID 5. Depending on the specific application (in
> >this case, the Oracle database), and load on the database, a single 9
> >gig drive may have trouble providing a satisfactory number of I/O
> >operations per second versus a RAID 5 array of 3 4.5gig drives which
> >should fare better.
>
> True, but I'd say *only on reads*. An uncached RAID5 array would generally
> be much slower on writes. And I would want a cache that was battery-backed
> and bullet-proof before using it for a db application - and most aren't. The
> only way you'd ever really know is to do some proper performance testing.
> Still, always worth remembering the write penalty of RAID5, especially when
> you think about the placement of redo, rollback and temp (and data and
> index, depending on your application).
>
can a connect a IBM 9337-240 unit to a PC type computer?
--
A.C. Curtis
KBØWLF
mailto:demoman_at_rollanet.org
http://www.rollanet.org/~demoman
Received on Wed Oct 07 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT
