Re: Oracle 8 drive configuration

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message news:1117672332.658983_at_yasure...
> bdbafh_at_gmail.com wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > Perhaps you are pushing an agenda just a little too much here.
> > Why don't you post that over in the .marketplace group instead?
> >
> > -bdbafh
>
> Because I'm not selling it and my point was purely technical. If
> the OP wants to stay with RAID5, because it is the least costly
> option. But can't with their current technology due to performance.
> There is technology that provides equal performance between RAID5 and
> RAID0+1. I gave them the that information. What they choose to do with
> it is not my business nor if they called me on the phone and wanted
> to buy it does the University of Washington sell hardware.
>
> Would you have had a problem if I suggested a 4 node 2CPU RAC cluster
> rather than a single 8-way box? Would you claim I was pushing RAC
> licenses? What if I suggested NetApp NFS rather than Solaris with
> Veritas? Because if you consider them "an agenda" then I've been doing
> those things for years and never once heard a peep out of you or anyone
> else.
>
> Yes I am going to say Apple from time-to-time. But only when it is
> appropriate as a specific technical solution to a specific problem as
> I did in this case. I don't own a single share of Apple stock. Heck I
> don't even own an iPOD.
>
> So if I have an agenda it is, at least to me, rather clear. Oracle is
> pushing something called the Low Cost Resilient Storage Initiative.
>
> Here's the link:
>

http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/availability/htdocs/lowcoststorage.html
>
> Under that initiative Oracle has been buying a lot of Apple hardware
> for its own data center in Redwood Shores. Telling people about what is
> an important Oracle initiative and how to implement it is my sole
> agenda. If Oracle changes what it thinks is best ... or if another
> vendor comes up with a superior technology ... expect me to talk about
> it too.
>
> I hope this explanation is sufficient.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)

Daniel, I don't know anything about any agenda that you may or may not have, but your answer misses the question posed by the OP by a rather wide margin. The Low Cost Resilient Storage Initiative that you cite uses functionality available only in 10g. The OP specifically stated that he is using Oracle 8. Further, he states that he already has the storage hardware, he only wishes to redeploy it for better performance. His indication that he wishes to use the storage he already has, means that if he wants to stick with fault tolerance in his array configuration he needs to either use parity based (Raid 5) and take the performance hit, or mirroring (anything with 1 in it) and the capacity hit. I don't think there is another way. The choice needs to be made based on what risks his business requirements permit (or don't). Received on Wed Jun 01 2005 - 22:55:01 CDT