From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Thu Sep 9 16:33:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i89LX7L06360 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:33:07 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i89LX7I06355 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:33:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 843A372DA25; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30824-96; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id E372D72CF65; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:33:58 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1757383522.20040909225806@rs.lv> To: edgar.chupit@rs.lv Cc: Oracle-L@freelists.org, oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: Raid5 Vs Raid0+1 -- Raw Vs Solaris 9 Concurrent Direct IO UFS MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: From: Jared.Still@radisys.com Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:36:33 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on DCBlackBerry/Radisys_Corporation/US(Release 6.0.3|September 26, 2003) at 09/09/2004 02:36:32 PM, Serialize complete at 09/09/2004 02:36:32 PM Content-type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 9344 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: Jared.Still@radisys.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: Jared.Still@radisys.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org > Unless I'm missing something than according to raid specs it doesn't > mater how many disks are in raid5 array, you just need one additional > disk for checksums, so in case of 6 spindle array you can create raid5 > that will operate according to your schema (it actually will be two > raid5 arrays) or you can create one raid5 array that will use 5 disks > for data and one disk for checksums. > > Please, correct me if I'm wrong. > It sounds to me like you are describing a RAID volume with dedicated parity. If so, that is RAID 3. RAID 5 has distributed parity. RAID 1+0 has no parity. ;) Jared -- To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request@freelists.org&subject=unsubscribe To search the archives - http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/