Re: RAID 5 vs RAID 10 benchmark

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:14:18 +1100
Message-ID: <41aa1567$0$24380$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Jonathan Lewis wrote:
> Notes in-line
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Lewis
>
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
> The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
>
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
> Optimising Oracle Seminar - schedule updated Sept 19th

Thanks for fixing the "--" thing. It makes a big difference!

Regards
HJR
> "Paul Drake" <bdbafh_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:910046b4.0411261612.5a6b1c3b_at_posting.google.com...
>

>>see_at_reply-to.invalid (Bruno Jargot) wrote in message 
>>news:<1gnvkn8.59mfua1rzpu5sN%see_at_reply-to.invalid>...
>>
>>16 GB of cache in front of 8 disks. Uh huh.
>>I think that one could safely say that "the ROI would suck" -
>>regardless of whether you have those disks arranged in a RAID 5 or
>>RAID 10 config.
>>

>
>
> Remember that you can get something like 200GB
> on to a single disc, so that could be just one percent
> cache.
>
> And, as one industry pundit is fond of saying at present,
> memory is very cheap, and the cheapest solution is often
> just to whack in a load more memory.
>
> Personally, I find that there RAID-5 / RAID-10 argument
> is pretty pointless, the first issue is to persuade people
> that you can't put a 180GB database onto a single 200GB
> disc if you want any serious degree of activity on the database.
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 28 2004 - 12:14:18 CST