Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?
Harry_Boswell_at_deq.state.ms.us wrote:
> 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 >>
If you don't have an I/O problem leave it alone and find something else to do like read the alert logs. If you have an I/O problem is it related to reads or writes? If reads leave it alone. If writes than it is time to convince management to spend money or more disk and reconfigure to 0+1. If they won't spend the money ... then the problem is theirs so leave it alone.
-- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)Received on Fri Aug 13 2004 - 20:35:13 CDT