--
"Geomancer" <pharfromhome_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf90fb89.0310101359.e7bd81c_at_posting.google.com...
> > 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
Put it in as simple of terms as you can and provide options with costs and
risks.
If a client says "it is ok to lose the day's data since the last backup",
then they are paying and you have made them aware of the data loss
potential. The people paying should know what they are getting or not
getting and what were the options and risks.
Of course, I'd get it in writing or Email or something so when they DO have
a data loss situation, you can easily remind everyone of the decision you
did NOT make.
> 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. . .
Received on Sat Oct 11 2003 - 02:18:40 CDT
