Re: A DBA philosopical question

From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:15:53 GMT
Message-ID: <dWnkf.26231$7h7.25916@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>

"Frank van Bortel" <frank.van.bortel_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:dmspth$aq3$1_at_news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> Bob Jones wrote:
>>>RAID 5 has a performance penalty when writing; lots of
>>>Applications write...
>>
>>
>> I don't disagree with that.
>>
>>
>>>RAID 5 leaves you with an expensive trash can when a second drive
>>>goes bad. Any other RAID configuration would need the *mirror* drive
>>>to fail, not just *any*, as with RAID 5.
>>
>>
>> Not true, what about RAID 0, RAID3, RAID4 and others.
>>
>>
>>>Not an unlikely scenario,
>>>with storage solutions being bought at a certain point in time, it's
>>>quite likely one batch of disks is being deployed.
>>>If one goes, chances are high others go as well.
>>
>>
>> If that's the case, it won't do much good to use any kind of RAID.
>>
>>
>
> RAID 0 being? Right.
> RAID 3 and 4 are not very common; let's stick to what is
> common in Oracle set ups:
> RAID 0,1,5 and 01 (or 10); sometimes even 50.
>
> RAID 5 will fail if a second disk, *any* second disk fails.
> Tell me it ain't so.

That was known and never disagreed on. What's your point? really. Please do read the entire thread or subthread before responding. Received on Sat Dec 03 2005 - 15:15:53 CST