Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:42:05 +1000
Message-ID: <410e1a53$0$18672$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Holger Baer" <holger.baer_at_science-computing.de> wrote in message news:cel5ii$a6i$1_at_news.BelWue.DE...
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > "joe bayer" <joebayerii(no-spam)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<qDPOc.1753$%J6.1677_at_trndny07>...
> >
> >>I am quoting from Jonathan Lewis's book, Practical Oracle 8i, page 206
> >>
> >>Raid 5 has an undeservedly bad reputation as far as Oracle database
systems
> >>are concerned. ....
> >>However, for most small systems, it is almost necessary and perfectly
> >>acceptable; and for many large systems it is totally adequate.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure that I buy that it is almost necessary - it would be
> > common in 'small' systems.
>
> Although it's quite some time since I've read that chapter, I've always
> understood that the necessity arises out of the fact that for really small
> systems you just can't get enough spindles into your box to satisfy
anything
> else but RAID 5 if you want some redundancy.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Holger

True enough. But if it's really that small, I doubt I'd be using Oracle.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Aug 02 2004 - 05:42:05 CDT