Re: Oracle 10gR2 / RAID-5 / SAN

On Dec 21, 11:16 am, bdbafh <bdb..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 12:55 pm, hpuxrac <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 4:43 am, jeremy <jeremy0..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have been looking around for more info on this and came across:
>
> > >http://spiralbound.net/2006/09/08/why-modern-raid-5-is-ideal-for-orac...
>
> > > Here is an excerpt:
>
> > Thanks but we can read from url's.  The baarf party pretty much says
> > it all anyway along with the practical experience many people have.
>
> > Small load systems ... well maybe but no thanks.
>
> > snip
>
> > > So.... does this alter the views of folk here? Reading this it would
> > > suggest that the issues of writer performance may be mitigated by the
> > > SAN managing everything.
>
> > > Appreciate more views on this
>
> > Raid 10 for me thanks.  If you have to work for someone running oracle
> > on Raid 5 keep your resume current.
>
> <snip>
> " If you have to work for someone running oracle on Raid 5 keep your
> resume current."
>
> Wait, I thought that was part of the disaster recovery plan ... not a
> performance issue per se.
>

lol, more of a disaster evacuation plan.

But seriously, John has a point, the simple fact that a site has been sold on it can be a bad sign. But all the crappy places to work need help too, and one person's hell is another's opportunity. Think of it, 10 years of six figure work is a million bucks, just because places are too stupid to evaluate their own IT needs. There's usually plenty of interesting things to do, regardless. Any place who's business is not software development is likely going to need to make plenty of compromises.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Come on down!
http://www.nbc4.com/money/14702622/detail.html?treets=dc&tml=dc_12pm&ts=T&tmi=dc_12pm_1_10500211272007