Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

From: Holger Baer <holger.baer_at_science-computing.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:40:12 +0200
Message-ID: <cel96t$evh$1@news.BelWue.DE>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> "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
>
>

Sometimes your vendor doesn't give you that much choice. What you make of such a vendor, now that's a different topic to discuss. :-)

Cheers,
Holger Received on Mon Aug 02 2004 - 06:40:12 CDT