Message-Id: <10488.105105@fatcity.com> From: Alex Hillman Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:35:41 -0400 Subject: RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB6C9.196E49B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" But doesn't moving involve writing (into data tablespaces, indexes or index creation)? In this case what did you win? I think that if you can not afford to have everything in RAID 0+1 you should have RBS, TEMP, REDO LOGS and most often changing data and indexes on RAID 0+1. By the way, the difference between let say 1TB of RAID 5 and RAID 0+1 is 0.8TB of disk space. If we assume that 10G disk cost $500 then 0.8TB should cost $40,000. It is nothing comparing with other costs of 1TB DW. Any thoughts anybody? Alex Hillman -----Original Message----- From: Madhavan Amruthur [mailto:mad012000@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:03 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1 RAID-5 should be good for the DW application but the area where information is loaded (involves lot of writes), we loaded them in a RAID 1 area and then we moved them over to the RAID-5 area as RAID-1 is good for writes. Hope this helps. Regards, Madhavan >From: CHUCK_HAMILTON@qvc.com >Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L >Subject: Re: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1 >Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:39:58 -0800 > > >DWs are typically high read, low write applications. RAID-5 should be fine >for all but TEMP tablespace, RBS tablespace, redo logs, and archived logs. >RAID 0+1 is also good but requires twice as much disk. >-- >Chuck Hamilton >QVC Inc. >Enterprise Technical Services >Oracle DBA > > > > "Surjit > Sharma" To: Multiple recipients of >list ORACLE-L > HAMILTON/QVC) > il.com.au> Subject: Data Warehousing - >RAID5 or RAID0-1 > Ext: NA > Sent by: > root@fatcity.c > om > > > 05/05/00 09:14 > AM > Please respond > to ORACLE-L > > > > > > > >Hi > >I need your thoughts on RAID0-1 vs RAID5 configuration on very large data >warehousing project. The expected data is going to be about 1 Tera byte, >10 Giga byte Memory, Sun box E6500 , Oracle 8.1.5. > >I am told that for data warehousing RAID01 (mirroring and striping) is the >good balance between RAID5 and no RAID at all. Does anyone has any >experience on this? I will be delighted to hear your thoughts. > >My main consideration is to be able to load the data in the given window >(overnight) and good response time for the queries. > >Thanks in advance. > >Surjit > > > > >-- >Author: > INET: CHUCK_HAMILTON@qvc.com > >Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 >San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message >to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in >the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L >(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may >also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- Author: Madhavan Amruthur INET: mad012000@hotmail.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB6C9.196E49B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1

But doesn't moving involve writing (into data = tablespaces, indexes or index creation)? In this case what did you win? = I think that if you can not afford to have everything in RAID 0+1 you = should have RBS, TEMP, REDO LOGS and most often changing data and = indexes on RAID 0+1. By the way, the difference between let say 1TB of = RAID 5 and RAID 0+1 is 0.8TB of disk space. If we assume that 10G disk = cost $500 then 0.8TB should cost $40,000. It is nothing comparing with = other costs of 1TB DW. Any thoughts anybody?

Alex Hillman

-----Original Message-----
From: Madhavan Amruthur [mailto:mad012000@hotmail.com]<= /FONT>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:03 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or = RAID0-1


RAID-5 should be good for the DW application but the = area where information
is loaded (involves lot of writes), we loaded them = in a RAID 1 area and then
we moved them over to the RAID-5 area as RAID-1 is = good for writes.

Hope this helps.
Regards,

Madhavan


>From: CHUCK_HAMILTON@qvc.com
>Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L = <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
>Subject: Re: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or = RAID0-1
>Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:39:58 -0800
>
>
>DWs are typically high read, low write = applications. RAID-5 should be fine
>for all but TEMP tablespace, RBS tablespace, = redo logs, and archived logs.
>RAID 0+1 is also good but requires twice as much = disk.
>--
>Chuck Hamilton
>QVC Inc.
>Enterprise Technical Services
>Oracle DBA
>
>
>
>          = ;           = "Surjit
>          = ;           = Sharma"          =      To:     Multiple = recipients of
>list ORACLE-L = <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
>          = ;           = <surjits@ozema        = cc:     (bcc: CHUCK
>HAMILTON/QVC)
>          = ;           = il.com.au>          = ;  Subject:     Data Warehousing -
>RAID5 or RAID0-1
>          = ;           Ext: = NA
>          = ;           Sent = by:
>          = ;           = root@fatcity.c
>          = ;           om
>
>
>          = ;           05/05/00 = 09:14
>          = ;           AM
>          = ;           Please = respond
>          = ;           to = ORACLE-L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi
>
>I need your thoughts on RAID0-1 vs RAID5  = configuration on very large data
>warehousing project. The expected data is = going  to be about 1 Tera byte,
>10 Giga byte Memory, Sun box E6500 , = Oracle  8.1.5.
>
>I am told that for data warehousing RAID01  = (mirroring and striping) is the
>good balance between=A0 RAID5 and no RAID = at  all.=A0 Does anyone has any
>experience on this? I will be delighted to = hear  your thoughts.
>
>My main consideration is to be able to load = the  data in the given window
>(overnight) and good response time for the  = queries.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Surjit
>
>
>
>
>--
>Author:
>   INET: CHUCK_HAMILTON@qvc.com
>
>Fat City Network Services    -- = (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
>San Diego, = California        -- Public Internet = access / Mailing Lists
>-----------------------------------------------------------= ---------
>To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send = an E-Mail message
>to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of = 'ListGuru') and in
>the message BODY, include a line containing: = UNSUB ORACLE-L
>(or the name of mailing list you want to be = removed from).  You may
>also send the HELP command for other information = (like subscribing).

_______________________________________________________________= _________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--
Author: Madhavan Amruthur
  INET: mad012000@hotmail.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) = 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, = California        -- Public Internet = access / Mailing Lists
---------------------------------------------------------------= -----
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an = E-Mail message
to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of = 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB =