Re: A DBA philosopical question

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:52:57 -0800
Message-ID: <1133725960.183388@jetspin.drizzle.com>

Bob Jones wrote:
> "HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.02.23.25.39.864182_at_telus.net...
>

>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:48:59 +0000, Randy Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks, an excellent article. Mr. Kagel doesn't seem very fond of RAID 5.
>>
>>He's not the only one - look at the list of BAARFers
>>
>>-- 
>>Hans Forbrich
>>Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
>>mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
>>*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***
>>

>
>
> I have read many articles like that. They always seem to lack practicality.
> The notion of "RAID 5 is bad" is very misleading. It has its pros and cons
> just like any other RAIDs. Whether to use it is heavily application
> dependent.
>
> If RAID 5 is all that bad, why is it so widely used and supported?

If windows is all bad, why is it so widely used and supported?

RAID 5 is not bad just as fire is not bad ... when used appropriate.

Except with Apple's Xserve RAID units with their dual XOR engines ... RAID5 dose not belong under an Oracle database. Why is it used so often then? Because most UNIX system admins. don't ask their counterpart DBAs what to do ... they just give them disk and say "make due with it."

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Sun Dec 04 2005 - 13:52:57 CST