Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:13:07 +0800, Connor McDonald <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

>Daniel Morgan wrote:
>>
>> Noons wrote:
>>
>> > Connor McDonald apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2004 10:15 PM:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Result: - They've halved the number of spindles
>> >> - They've not enough disk space
>> >> but hey...at least we've got a SAN
>> >
>> >
>> > Wait until the IT damager decides to go to a NAS
>> > because it's "better value"...
>>
>> The performance difference between SAN and NAS used to be of critical
>> importance. I am not seeing enough difference these days to justify
>> the huge difference in price. Is anyone having a different experience?
>>
>> --
>> Daniel A. Morgan
>> University of Washington
>> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
>> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
>
>The next version of NFS (is it 4?) is touted to resolve a lot of the
>issues with NAS. I know of a few clients (albeit hardly massive
>database activity) that are happily running oracle on netapp
>

OK..... having read through (most of) these replies, I'm wondering what I should make of them. I'm currently running RAID 5 - 2 A1000s - and there's no money to go buy new disk systems. So, do I take from this that I should reconfigure to RAID 0, or RAID 1? Should I put my redo logs on non-RAID drives? Should I tell my network guys, who are wanting to marry their Wintel servers and my Solaris servers "over my dead body"?

Harry Received on Fri Aug 13 2004 - 10:42:33 CDT