Re: A DBA philosopical question

From: Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bortel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:09:07 +0100
Message-ID: <dmspth$aq3$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>

Bob Jones wrote:

>>RAID 5 has a performance penalty when writing; lots of
>>Applications write...

>
>
> I don't disagree with that.
>
>

>>RAID 5 leaves you with an expensive trash can when a second drive
>>goes bad. Any other RAID configuration would need the *mirror* drive
>>to fail, not just *any*, as with RAID 5.

>
>
> Not true, what about RAID 0, RAID3, RAID4 and others.
>
>

>>Not an unlikely scenario,
>>with storage solutions being bought at a certain point in time, it's
>>quite likely one batch of disks is being deployed.
>>If one goes, chances are high others go as well.

>
>
> If that's the case, it won't do much good to use any kind of RAID.
>
>

RAID 0 being? Right.
RAID 3 and 4 are not very common; let's stick to what is common in Oracle set ups:
RAID 0,1,5 and 01 (or 10); sometimes even 50.

RAID 5 will fail if a second disk, *any* second disk fails. Tell me it ain't so.

-- 
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...

Received on Sat Dec 03 2005 - 13:09:07 CST