Re: RAID 0+1 or 2 x RAID 1?

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:05:56 -0700, "Yev" <yev_at_NOnetideaSPAM.com> wrote:
Well, with only 5-7 disks I would probably count RAID 0-1 out of the picture because you will probably end up with to much contention.

My first step would be to beg, borrow, steal another 8 disks for a total of 15. With 15 disks you can configure a nice RAID 0-1 setup.

As it stands, I would create 2 sets of 2 like you mentioned, putting the oracle binaries and index tablespaces on one set, and the data tablespaces on the other set. Oh damn, I did not see the OS mentioned, I would also put the OS on this first set. This still stretches your log and control files pretty thin. I would use two log groups, and segregate them accross the 4 disks.

Unless you know the apps really well and the user load, it is an educated crap shoot. If you have the luxury of cold backups, run a backup each night and play around with different configs after the system is in use. (yea a little overtime but usually worth it in the long run)

-CC

>We have an NT Server coming with a 3 Channel DPT Century RAID card and 5 x
>7200rpm IBM hard drives (initially). We will probably get 2 more of the same
>disks in the future.
>
>We will be implementing Oracle 8.05 for 2 different custom applications
>(Accounting/Payroll type).
>
>One of them makes good use of triggers & stored procedures. The other only
>uses indexes.
>
>We do not have a DBA on staff to do a bunch of testing and re-configuring.
>(No flames please!)
>
>What would be the best RAID configuration to start????:
>
>1. 4 disks on a RAID 0+1 & 1 disk hot spare
> - would it be difficult to expand the stripe sets with additional 2 hard
>drives?
>
>
>2. 2 seperate sets of 2 disks RAID 1 & 1 disk hot spare.
> - we would have to seperate the OS, page file, apps, data, redo,
>archives, indexes etc. manually (best educated guess?).
> - The future 2 disks would be a 3rd RAID 1 set which would then hold
>some of the above items (best educated guess as to split again?).
>
>
>In ether situation, we would also have "partitioning" issues.
>
>Any comments or suggestions would appreciated....
>
>
>TIA
>
>
>Yev.
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 17 1999 - 17:16:25 CDT