Re: Please recommend a disk configuration for the server

WebMonkey wrote:
>
> 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?

You can connect any SCSI drive. The only problem is if the drive has been configured with a block size other than 512 bytes (as some minicomputer  OEM drives are) the controller will not properly handle this. You can use a CAM utility to reset the block size and then reformat the drive if the block size is different but it is a pain and some controllers (BusLogic for ex.) will not properly pass the size change to the drive (Adaptecs seem to allow it I do not know about others).

Art S. Kagel Received on Wed Oct 07 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT