Re: Why?

From: Alexander Skwar <from_at_alexander.skwar.name>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:58:20 +0200
Message-ID: <514cqrts7o0q.dlg@a.skwar.digitalprojects.com>

Am Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:48:03 +1000 schrieb Howard J. Rogers:

> "Alexander Skwar" <from_at_alexander.skwar.name> wrote in message
> news:8iowpa5bgf2f.dlg_at_a.skwar.digitalprojects.com...

>> Hi!
>>
>> In the Oracle documentation, it's often suggested to use OFA to design
>> where files are located. This suggests to create filesystems /u00, /u01,
>> /u02 ...
>>
>> What I don't get - suppose that my server supports RAID 5.

>
> No database should run RAID5.

Why? And why are you even suggesting RAID0? While RAID0 surely improves the speed, it also increases the risk of losing everything when just one disk goes faulty.

>

>>Why would it
>> be "better" to have 3 fs (one for each harddisk) instead of having one
>> /data filesystem which consists of those 3 harddisks?

>
> Forget the 'one for each hard disk'.

Ah, okay.

> It would be a good idea to have
> multiple mountpoints or directories within a RAID0 array, because it makes
> sense to logically separate things which are managed differently.

Yes, it does. However, for this I'd rather just use directories instead of different filesystems. Well, maybe seperate fs, since it's no deal to change the size of the filesystems/partitions with LVM.

> argument for OFA goes out of the window. But those three types of file still
> get *managed* differently, and accordinglt there is still an
> ease-of-management argument for logically distinguishing them from each
> other, even if physically it all goes a bit iffy.

ACK Thanks,

Alexander Skwar

-- 
/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
        2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c

Received on Mon Jun 28 2004 - 05:58:20 CDT