Re: Raid and ORACLE

wtf? RAID 1, for redo is only expensive, but it effectively protect your redo from disk failure (RAID 1 is mirroring) - writes are not bad, and an reads can be satisfied from either mirror. Soooo, I don't see the big issue with RAID 1, especially since disk is cheap. (you should sitll of course do multiple sets - which ends up costing more in disk).

OTOH, you get better performance doing RAID 0 (striping) for redo, and having multiple redo sets.

But fired, eventually, why?

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:55:02 -0600, "Jim DeCicco" <decj1_at_interaccess.com> wrote:

>I'd say that using Raid 1 would be closer to the optimal solution than it is
>to the worst solution.
>
>Jim
>
>"Michael O'Neill" <mjoneill_at_email.com> wrote in message
>news:T50T5.228778$g6.104795945_at_news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>> "Philippe MARY" <philippe.mary_at_cnfpt.fr> wrote in message
>> news:lKRS5.764$et7.2248858_at_nnrp3.proxad.net...
>> > I'd like to know if there are some recommendation when using ORACLE with
>> > RAID.
>> >
>> > I think to use RAID 1 for
>> > Redo log
>>
>> Using RAID1 for redo log files should be just enough for you and your unix
>> admin to get fired, eventually.
>> --
>> Michael O'Neill
>> mjoneill_at_email.com
>>
>>
>>
>
  Received on Thu Nov 23 2000 - 20:38:42 CST