Re: RAID-5

That piece of advice is a generic comment - the only problem with general purpose advice is that every real case is a special case.

It is true that raid-5 is almost always slower for writes that anything else: then again a 2CV is almost always slower than a Porsche - but the if you live on Guernsey (UKG that is) the speed limit is only 25 MPH anyway so who cares.

You need only worry if you have a database that really needs to go very fast - e.g. at an average rate over 2GB per day.

It won't mater for your pair at a total of 120M to 200M per day.

There are a couple of simple C programs on my website (related to choosing a block size) that might be of use to do some testing.

--

Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site: www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Kenneth C Stahl wrote in message <377766CA.C27277CB_at_lucent.com>...
>Looking for a bit of esoteric experience here.
>
>I have a two-processor Compaq Proliant running Unixware 2.1.2 and Oracle
>7.3.4 with two instances running simulaneously for different
>applications. My filesystems are on RAID5. Oracle documentation
>specifically warns against having redo logs on RAID devices. Right now I
>do not have any choice because I'm stuck with this hardware
>architecture. I'm really not seeing any specific problems.
>
Received on Mon Jun 28 1999 - 08:00:06 CDT