Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: BAARF

RE: BAARF

From: Matthew Zito <mzito_at_gridapp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:29:41 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.005D1109.20030925102941@fatcity.com>

I would strongly advise against redo logs on RAID-0 with oracle duplexing. Different operating systems respond more or less gracefully to the vanishing of a storage device (which is the normal behavior of a failed disk on a RAID-0 set on a HW array). There's too many variables possible to list out the scenarios, but I would definitely definitely test failing a RAID-0 set under load before I would go live with redo logs on raid-0.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito_at_gridapp.com
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ml-errors_at_fatcity.com [mailto:ml-errors_at_fatcity.com] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Day
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: BAARF
>
>
>
> I would love to have a definitive site that I could send all
> RAID-F advocates to where it would be laid out clearly,
> unambiguously, and definitively what storage types should be
> used for what purpose.
>
> Redo logs on RAID 0 with Oracle duplexing (y/n)?
> Rollback (or undo) ditto?
> Write intensive tablespaces on RAID 1+0 (or should that be
> 0+1)? Read intensive tablespaces on RAID ? (I guess 5 is OK
> since it's cheaper than 1+0 and you won't have the write penalty)
>
> While we're at it could we blow up the OFA myth? Since
> you're tablespaces are on datafiles that are on logical
> volumns that are on physical devices which may contain one or
> many actual disks, does it really make sense to worry (from a
> performance standpoint) about separating tables and indexes
> into different tablespaces?
>
> We have killed the "everything in one extent" myth haven't
> we? Everybody's comfortable with tables that have 100's of extents?
>
> And while we're at it, could we include the Oracle 9 multiple
> blocksizes and how to use them. The best that I've seen is
> indexes in big blocks, tables in small blocks --- uh, oh,
> time to separate tables and indexes.
>
> Maybe we will never get rid of the OFA myth.
>
> Just venting.
>
> Tired of arguing in front of management with Oracle certified
> DBAs that RAID 5 is not good, OFA is unnecessary, and uniform
> extents is the only way to go. Looking for a big stick to
> catch their attention with.
>
>
> --
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
> --
> Author: Thomas Day
> INET: tday6_at_csc.com
>
> Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
> San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru')
> and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB
> ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed
> from). You may also send the HELP command for other
> information (like subscribing).
>
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Matthew Zito INET: mzito_at_gridapp.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Thu Sep 25 2003 - 13:29:41 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US