Re: DBA Experiences with Oracle and RAID 0+1

Jon,

It's one of those "how many bags will I need in the supermarket?" questions - it depends.

Consider:

• RAID 1+0 is much better than 0+1.
• Three disks is not much w.r.t. IO capability. If you have three concurrent users you'll be OK :)
• Size doesn't matter (who cares if it's 10, 36 or 73 Gig disks? It's the IO capabilitity that counts)
• I'm new to this list, so I don't know if this will work, but I've attached a brilliant presentation by our old friend James Morle (check out www.ScaleAbilities.com) regarding SAN, NAS and RAS (Random Acronym Seminar).
• If you're only striping across three disks (is that really a SAN?) just SAME (Stripe And Mirror Everything). It might not be good, but it's simple.

Jon Behnke wrote:

>We are in the process of setting up a SAN using RAID 0+1 for our database.
>In our current environment, we are able to separate our tables, indexes,
>rollback segments, and archive logs on different disks. On the SAN we would
>have six 73 gig disks on RAID 0+1 for a total of about 210 Gig of usable
>space (3 disks worth of space).
>
>Some white papers that I have read suggest attempting to separate the data,
>indexes, and rollback segments on separate RAID volumes, and others simply
>suggest that the performance boost of striping will supercede the separation
>of these items.
>
>Can anyone offer any comments or suggestions?
>
>Jon Behnke
>Applications Development Manager
>Industrial Electric Wire & Cable
>Phone (262) 957-1147 Fax (262) 957-1647
>jonb_at_iewc.com
>

Sane_SAN_WP.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Received on Tue Jan 15 2002 - 20:29:15 CST