What about 5 * RAID1 System drives with the primary partitions & shadow
partitions on different channels. You'll need a total of 10 physical
drives - 5 on ch0 & 5 on ch1...
dave mausner <dmausner_at_ameritech.x.net> wrote in message
news:8EB8BC93dlm_at_206.141.192.241...
> peterw_at_trinitysoftware.com.au (Peter Winters) wrote in
> <newscache$vx95of$sqa$1_at_news.iig.com.au>:
>
> >got performance gains with the data warehouse, most likely due to a
> >better hard drive system (Mylex extreme RAID 32Mb cache), and greater
> > [ . . . ]
> >need to be placed on separate drives. In all but one DB system we
> >utilised the 5 drive arrangement as spec'd by OFA. This allows you to
> >divide RBS, Data, Indexes, Logs, Temp tablespace on to seperate drives.
> >
> >goofnut <goofnut_member_at_newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:85dkde$14dv_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> >> I am trying to find if anyone has any experience dealing with Oracle 8
> >> on Windows NT. [ . . . ]
>
> i agree with everything peter the ozzie says, except:
> ofa storage layout does nothing special for you w/r/t performance, if
> your entire disk farm is running raid-5 (striping). with just one massive
> bit-bucket, the various file systems are really different collections of
> stripes on the same set of disks. hence, the file systems are not
> separate as you say. in fact, moving data across raid-5 file systems just
> waves the heads; this is exactly the opposite of ofa's traditional
> advantage.
>
> it is possible to have 5 different raid controllers with 5 dma channels
> to the main memory; but even big enterprise servers rarely do. if so, ofa
> still works as advertised. --
> dave mausner (raid-9) (flame-proof)
Received on Tue Jan 11 2000 - 00:28:09 CST
