Re: Why?

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:38:32 +1000
Message-ID: <40e00319$0$18666$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Alexander Skwar" <from_at_alexander.skwar.name> wrote in message news:514cqrts7o0q.dlg_at_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?

Because RAID5 has a write penalty (so, Ok, a read-only database is probably OK on RAID5).

>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.

What are archivelogs there for?

My point was simply that RAID0 stripes, but without the write penalty. Practically, you would really want RAID0+1, of course.

But that's expensive, and one can forego the +1 component with a clear conscience, provided your backup and archiving strategies are well thought out.

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Jun 28 2004 - 06:38:32 CDT