Re: Do we need multiple REDOLOG member if it is already on SAN box?

From: Noons <>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 20:00:52 +1000
Message-ID: <ipr84h$4gt$>

joel garry wrote,on my timestamp of 4/05/2011 2:08 AM:

> I did not know when I wrote that that the reason I hadn't seen too
> many cow-orkers that morning was because two disks had failed over the
> weekend in a san that was set up for one disk failure. Fortunately
> not one for the db's, just one that everybody else uses.

Hey, it all depends on the setup. Never underestimate the power of a distracted human to stuff up settings!
I know: my business is settings! ;)

> I haven't been keeping close track, but I think that means over 10
> years, a once-in-100-year event approximately every other year for one
> (distributed) site. Not counting the whole batch of IBM disks that
> didn't even get past initial burn-in.

Dunno about that. All I know is our SAN warns us weeks in advance that a disk is getting a bit iffy. And my word, they do get iffy. That's what all that S.M.A.R.T. stuff is for. It also sends a request for a new disk back to its origin, with the net result that we have yet to have a catastrophic failure of two disks at the same time. Heck, we can't even get ONE disk to fail: they get replaced before they have a chance to implode. Of course: that means our SAN admin is not taking shortcuts in SAN setup. No siree - we'd have his doolies if he did, that's for sure!

> Of course, they've had a few once-in-23,000-year events in the nuke
> industry lately, so I guess that's not the worst. (Can't get to the
> exact stats since net access is still degraded while replicants catch
> up. But it was either 23K or 17K, kind of caught my attention,
> official US regulatory estimates.)

LOL! Lies, damn lies and "nuke stats"? Received on Wed May 04 2011 - 05:00:52 CDT

Original text of this message