Re: RAID 5

Bryan Lenihan wrote:

> I would think that hardware based RAID-5 would be OK. I would
> recommend
> another RAID, however like 1/0. Raid-5 does provide the ultimate in
> protection, but I have seen performance problems (UNIX and NT) when
> using the RAID - 5.

You are right. But I think it depends on how RAID5 is configured. We have a separate RAID-Box with its own Processor in it.So the bottlenek is never the array itself but the controler (more than ultra wide isn't possible). But I think this is also with RAID 1/0. For this reason I have an additional disk (IDE) for indices and temporary tablespace (reproducable things).

On the other hand I know the performance in copying big files from RAID5 to RAID5 (same array) is very very fast (because the controller is not issued?).So I think the allover answer is difficult and must be seen differed.

> I did have problems using NT soft RAID-5 (or stripping with parity)
> before we switch to hardware RAID-5.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan
>
> Moshe Tamir wrote:
>
> > One of my clients is planning to run Oracle 7.2.5 on HP with 3-4 Gig
 

> > data on RAID 5 device. The application is heavy OLTP.
> >
> > I read that RAID 5 may not be stable enough for this.
> >
> > Can anyone add to this discussion with some specific information?
> >
> > Thanks, MOSHE
Received on Tue Feb 03 1998 - 00:00:00 CST