Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

From: Ryan Gaffuri <rgaffuri_at_cox.net>
Date: 4 Aug 2004 07:23:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1efdad5b.0408040623.142d54d8@posting.google.com>

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1091543000.433693_at_yasure>...
> Noons wrote:
>
> > Connor McDonald apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2004 10:15 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Result: - They've halved the number of spindles
> >> - They've not enough disk space
> >> but hey...at least we've got a SAN
> >
> >
> > Wait until the IT damager decides to go to a NAS
> > because it's "better value"...
>
> The performance difference between SAN and NAS used to be of critical
> importance. I am not seeing enough difference these days to justify
> the huge difference in price. Is anyone having a different experience?

I don't participate in procurement, so I cannot speak to the cost. However, SAN has a significant advantage in bulk processing. If you set your db_file_multiblock_read_count=<max> and get 1 MB per IO, your bulk processing response time can improve by a factor of 4-8 times. I have seen this consistently in bulk reporting, bulk dml, large full table joins(especially if your PGA is sized right), and large CTAS statements.

What is the cost difference between SAN and NAS? Received on Wed Aug 04 2004 - 09:23:23 CDT