Re: external storage and commit?

Sean M <smckeownNO_at_BACKSIESearthlink.net> wrote:
>Andrew Mobbs wrote:
>
>Probably just ask IBM, since afaik Oracle doesn't certify hardware. I'm
>surprised to hear about a restriction on the amount of redo for the
>Shark. For EMC towers (8430, 8730, etc.), the cache works quite nicely
>for all database files, even extemely large and/or active online redos.
>All writes go to cache first - you have no choice. Eventually the
>infomation gets moved to actual hard disk. Last time I checked these
>towers support 16GB of cache, if you can afford it.
>
>> In the sort of systems I'm involved with, using the array cache for
>> redo isn't that useful, as it is too small and leads to too frequent
>> checkpoints.
>
>Not database checkpoints I assume? Or if so, I'm not sure I follow.
 

I was talking about online redo only being in cache, not backed by disk:

<http://www.hp.com/products1/storage/disk_arrays/xpstoragesw/cachelunxp/index.html>

(Not that I'm trying to advertise HP products, it's just what I'm working with at the moment.)

-- 
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/