Geomancer wrote:
>>Seriously using one disk for an oracle database is asking for trouble in
>>most (all?) production environments. You've no safety margin - if that disk
>>fails it's game over (at least whilst you find another disk and reinstall
>>from a backup).
>>
>>
>
>Thanks Andy. Yes, maybe I should clarify. Of course, the disk is
>mirrored (one client is triple mirrored) and all are protected against
>disk failure with redundant controllers.
>
>My issue is cost justification and the "myth" of disk file
>segregation!
>
>When a "single" disk system (a mirrored pair) is large enough to hold
>the whole database, how do I justify asking them to buy six more
>72-gig spindles "three mirrored disk pairs", just to segregate redo
>and indexes and undo.
>
>Bottom-line, is disk segregation on non-RAID disk really a "myth", or
>does it apply to mirrored-only disk databases where the entire
>database is under 100 gig?
>
>By the way, I have checked vendors, and it's hard to find a disk with
>less than 72-gig these days. . .
>
>
By discussing performance. If you don't have any performance issues
there isn't much of a point as
long as you have mirrored redundancy from 0+1 or 1+0.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Fri Oct 10 2003 - 19:49:25 CDT
