Re: Raid 50

From: Mogens Nørgaard <mln_at_miracleas.dk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:34:14 +0200
Message-ID: <40F222D6.4090400@miracleas.dk>

The BAARF membership template (ie an email to me :) ) is on baarf.com - we would like people to submit a statement regarding RAID-F also, but just the name will give them party membership. You, Paul, of course don't need to do this - I've given you membership number 62, which should be visible on the website at some point in the near future :).

What a fantastic concept of RAID-50. I've always loved the idea of selling customers RAID-5 solutions, and then mirror them. With the idea of striping across RAID-5 sets, whole new possibilities arise.

For instance, we could mirror this striped RAID-5 idea and get RAID-510. But why stop there? The striping in itself can give problems, so why not use a more secure striping technlogy, namely RAID-5? So we could start out RAID-5'ing the RAID-5 sets, thus getting RAID-55. THEN we could mirror that solution, arriving at the incredible RAID-551 setup.

So that was the fun of it. Now for some slightly more serious comments:

I've heard about situations where DBA's, sysadmins, and other people who know stuff have fought the RAID-5 madness from the vendors, and then being offered that they can have RAID-0, or RAID-1, or maybe even RAID-10, ON TOP of the RAID-5 implementation. That way everybody gets what they want, don't they? I didn't believe it the first time I heard it, but it would appear to be something the poor sales reps are now doing as the big compromise, and management typically don't want to listen to all that technical stuff from the techies, so this is a good solution :-))).

I think it's a very good idea, too. I want more RAID-5, and the sooner the better.

Kind regards,

An anonymous director from a consulting company... aka Mogens

Paul Drake wrote:

> --- "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan_at_cih.com> wrote:
>

>>con: you lose some level of redundancy. Instead of
>>mirror pairs of two disks,
>>you have raid5 sets of N (usually 4 or 8) disks. A
>>double fault is more 	    
>>likely with a raid5 set. It is still a possibility
>>with raid10, too.

>
>
> since I'm not a BAARF member as of yet, I can still
> discuss this. Mogens, you could fix that :)
>

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Mon Jul 12 2004 - 00:30:52 CDT