Re: Raid performace issues (Raid 5 vs. Raid 0+1) with database files

Hi:

See the article on RAID on the site below (Performance -> RAID). It's specific to NT, but the rules are the same for Unix.

Regards,

--
David C. Sisk
Need tech info on Oracle? Visit The Unofficial ORACLE on NT site at http://www.ipass.net/~davesisk/oont.htm Like original modern rock? Listen to song samples and buy a CD at http://www.mp3.com/disparityofcult

Martin Hepworth wrote in message <37CCD323.5D644363_at_usa.net>...
>NetComrade wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> We are thinking to place one of our DB's on a Sun Storedge 5200 and
>> Sun Enterprise 4500.
>>
>> Since we have a web-based OLTP environment, well, actually mixed,
>> since we have major updates running at nights against most of the
>> data, I thought that RAID-5 is not great, since during the day there
>> are a lot of small reads/writes.
>> I was thinking about 0+1 on datafiles with actualy data, but I am not
>> sure whether I need to mirror the TEMP tablespace or whether I should
>> place the REDO logs on the mirror.
>>
>> Any advice would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanx
>> ---------------
>> Andrey Dmitriev eFax: (978) 383-5892 Daytime: (917) 373-5417
>> AOL: NetComrade ICQ: 11340726 remove NSPAM to email
>
>HI
>Well I'm doing similar and am about to test various combinations...right
>now I'm going for 2x RAID5 sets, 1 for the data and 1 for the redo logs.
>With the 5200 you have hardware RAID5 so writing should be nice and
>fast, not that much different from 0+1, and RAID 0+1 is probably not
>justifiable for extra tiny perf gain agianst cost of disks.
>
>But like I said I'm going to test a few combinations and see what
>happens. If you want to pool test results contact me via email.
>
>Martin
Received on Wed Sep 01 1999 - 21:23:05 CDT