Re: General SAN advice needed for 2TB 9.2.0.8 database on HP-UX
From: Frank van Bortel <fbortel_at_home.nl>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <e3635$4c2a48fc$524ba3af$17208_at_cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>
On 06/23/2010 04:07 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:00:11 +0200, Frank van Bortel wrote:
>
>> Make it all SAME: Stripe and Mirror Everything.
>
> You're in marketing? SAME == RAID 1+0.
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <e3635$4c2a48fc$524ba3af$17208_at_cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>
On 06/23/2010 04:07 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:00:11 +0200, Frank van Bortel wrote:
>
>> Make it all SAME: Stripe and Mirror Everything.
>
> You're in marketing? SAME == RAID 1+0.
No; and I prefer RAID 0+1.
Not in storage, I seem to recall striping was RAID-0, mirroring
was RAID-1. Same would be RAID-0+1, then, eh?
>
>> Don't know about stripe sizes -
>
> That was the OP's question.
>
>> what do you think to gain by playing with these?
>
> Speed.
>
Still, no one provided any hard numbers.
Everybody seems convinced about gains in playing with these figures, but the question remains: - is 1MB stripe any different from what the
vendor recommended?
- if so, what gains in speed were measured
ordered by stripe size?
-- Regards, Frank van BortelReceived on Tue Jun 29 2010 - 14:26:52 CDT