RE: BAARF

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).