Message-Id: <10662.120483@fatcity.com> From: Satar Naghshineh Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:25:57 -0700 Subject: RE: RAID This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0403A.F7D5CC90 Content-Type: text/plain Actually NetApp uses their own version of RAID 4. No comment on NetApp (last time it got me in trouble) ;) Regards, Satar > -----Original Message----- > From: Holman, Rodney [SMTP:rodney.holman@lodgenet.com] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:31 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > Subject: RE: RAID > > We are running RAID 5 on EMC Symetrix here. The cache on the Sym box does > an excellent job of keeping up with Oracle. If I were working with a > standard array I would more likely lean towards the RAID 0+1. I've never > used it, but the NetApp Filer discussed in another thread uses a RAID 3 > implementation. Anyone have any ideas on that?? > > Rodd Holman > Enterprise Data Systems Engineer > LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation > rodney.holman@lodgenet.com > Comments made are my own opinions and views. They do not represent views, > policies, or procedures of LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0403A.F7D5CC90 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: RAID

Actually NetApp uses = their own version of RAID 4. No comment on NetApp (last time it got me = in trouble) ;)

Regards,
Satar