| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Raid 50
Why indeed stop with RAID-5 when you can do RAID-6 (aptly named for the
factor six it incurs on small writes)?
Then, finally, we could have the RAID-666.
As Cary pointed out to be, the Law Of Bigger Numbers (LOBN) applies here - both with respect to number of IO's and number of dollars spent.
James Morle had his birthday party this previous weekend, and while having one beer we decided to announce (jointly with the help of the BAARF Party members, perhaps?) the RAID-42 system soon, complete with an official-looking press release and all.
It would probably automatically produce competitive marketing papers from the big vendors, explaining that the simplicity of RAID-510 is to be preferred to this new, un-tested RAID-42 technology by a startup company called BAARF Unlimited.
We all know RAID-4 (some of you might be using it without knowing it, even!), but RAID-2 is less known - it's the first RAID-level that introduces parity disks. And I MEAN, literally, parity DISKS. It's beautiful. It must be a historic oversight that it's never really been used.
Mogens
Thomas Day wrote:
> <sarcasm>
> My mind immediately leapt to the RAID-555 technology; but why stop ther=
> e?
> The more you RAID-5 it the better the performance, right?
> </sarcasm>
>
-- 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 Wed Jul 14 2004 - 01:40:32 CDT
 |
 |