RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1

Hi Alex,
Its been almost a year and half since we did this and I went back and checked how we laid it out.
I just checked the spreadsheet, we had RAID 1 for TEMP, current fact table data and index data.
We had RAID 5 for historical fact and index data. We had RAID 0+1 set up for RBS, redo logs and dimesion table data.

This was a set up that we built at that time and this was a benchmarking system and no new data was being added at that time except we were loading the aggregates based on the data available.

This probably was not the best layout but for our scenario this worked pretty well and within the limitations of the resources we had.

Hope this helps.
Regards,

Madhavan
IBM Corporation Webserver Division

>From: Alex Hillman <alex_hillman_at_physia.com>
>Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
>Subject: RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1
>Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:48:56 -0800
>
>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-----
>Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:03 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
>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_at_qvc.com
> >Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_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_at_fatcity.com>
> > <surjits_at_ozema cc: (bcc: CHUCK
> >HAMILTON/QVC)
> > il.com.au> Subject: Data Warehousing
>-
> >RAID5 or RAID0-1
> > Ext: NA
> > Sent by:
> > root_at_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_at_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_at_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_at_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_at_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).
Received on Fri May 05 2000 - 15:50:34 CDT