Re: A DBA philosopical question

"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:dcpvo1p30dvk8fcqbacnpgf7s6ru1vhgb2_at_4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:00:48 GMT, "Bob Jones" <email_at_me.not> wrote:
>
> ><jared.hecker_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1133466649.707467.142860_at_g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>I am consulting at an all-Windows shop, running mostly 9.2.0.3 -
> >> 9.2.0.6 under Windows 2003 Server. The one no-no I've encountered so
> >> far is that their SAN array is all RAID 5. As they have grown by
> >> acquisition, this is an old, old StorageTek unit that supposedly does
> >> not support RAID 1,0.
> >>
> >
> >What's wrong with using RAID 5?
>
> You still don't know? How about the penalty associated with writes,
> because of calculating and writing a checksum to disk?
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

That's nothing I haven't heard before. RAID 5, in fact, is much better than what it sounds on paper, especially the host-based one. It is an inexpensive way of doing RAID. The only thing I don't recommend putting on RAID 5 is the transaction logs, in most cases anyway. Received on Fri Dec 02 2005 - 15:36:31 CST