Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

<Harry_Boswell_at_deq.state.ms.us> wrote in message news:t4oph0tas8jvkh0sotimqujkf4snlpnk7h_at_4ax.com...

> 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"?

Impossible to tell. I'd ask these questions though.

1. Is your disk subsystem a problem for your business? If not why change it? I have the utmost respect for the guys who came up with BAARF, indeed I was at that event. I disagree though. If you have RAID5 and your systems are doing fine why change?
2. Why does the OS of a server affect you? If they are suggesting killing off solaris and running the DB on windows, well thats one thing. If they are suggesting letting windows servers see a db - well that is a business decision surely? We don't know which it is.

I would suggest though that anyone who says that X is always bad (where X is RAID5, windows, sqlserver, SAN, etc) is wrong.

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com