Re: Oracle and RAID

"Glenn Stauffer" <stauffer_at_voicenet.com> wrote:

>Dean Cunningham <deanc_at_wairc.govt.nz> wrote in article
><31E23307.6BFE_at_wairc.govt.nz>...
>> kavis_at_usa.pipeline.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > 3 and 5 negative on update/write operation, reliability is gained at
 the
>> > expense of performance or need large cache,
>> >
>> > 0+1 best performance of all the RAID options, but doubles the # of
>> > disks...so more $
>>
>> Fully agree. FYI Compaq were "quoting" a 15% drop in performance on
>> their Array controllers with RAID 5 vs Raid 0/1.
>> With their new controller they are "quoting" 5% drop.
>>
>> So perhaps the type of RAID controller can affect performance as
>> well.....
>>
 

>Caching can make a big difference - almost enough to remove most of the
>write penalty. My guess is that Compaq has either just added a much larger
>cache to the controller or that and some other changes.
 

>Glenn Stauffer
>DBA
>Swarthmore College
>

We're using RAID 5 with an HP 9000 ... I don't know who provided the RAID device, but it wasn't HP. I was thinking of moving the tablespace used for temporary tables to a non-RAID device as this tablespace has alot of write activity. Anyone try that and see if it makes a noticeable difference?

Ron Strouss
DBA
Darigold, Inc.
Seattle, WA Received on Fri Jul 26 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST