Re: Creating a Database on RAID 5

In article <8slbpb$ol2$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,   EnderW <ender29_at_my-deja.com> wrote:
> My adv. frankly donot use RAID 5, it has a write penalty....
>
> In article <8sl7up$l76$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,
> aminocha_at_unibiz.com wrote:
> > HI,
> > We have a IBM Netfinity 5100 P3 /733 Mhz server running windows NT
 on
> > it. It is a RAID Level 5 configured and has 5 HDD.
> > I am planning to install Oracle 8.0.5 and create a database. where
 do
 i
> > find information on how to configure the database on a RAID 5
 machine.
> >
> > Any help will be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anurag
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> Ender Wiggin
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

--
My adv. frankly donot use anything _BUT_ RAID 5, all others have a cost
penalty . . .


Of course, my _real_ point is that the choice of RAID configuration --
or lack of -- depends on the situation.  Yes, all else being equal
RAID-5 has a performance hit on write operations.  BUT . . . "all else"
is never equal.  RAID implemented in hardware with a good caching
controller will improve performance over an OS implementation. More
spindles improve the performance through increased parallelism,
especially on read operations -- and given the application mix, this
might acutally IMPROVE overall performance.  Perhaps the application is
simply not very write intensive when compared to the I/O capacity of the
disk sub-system.  In this case a slower write operation may very well
not even be detectable, especially to the end user.

While I don't have the benchmarks, I'd be willing to bet that the number
of physical channels you can spread your files (and thus, your I/O)
across has more of an impact on real throughput/response time than the
RAID level.


Ed Stevens
(Opinions are not necessarily those of my employer)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.