Quoting Jefferson Ogata <[email protected]>: > I've got several hundred disks running on RAID 5 and I've had one actual > full RAID failure in 10 years, and that was my fault.
You've been lucky! :) In 10 years, I've think I've had 3 RAID 5 failures (all rebuilt without problems). > In terms of performance, depending on the workload, RAID 5 can > outperform RAID 10. Very true. > Furthermore Oracle's recommendations are based on > what appears to be 5-10-year-old data I agree, it appears outdated to me also. > Bear in mind > also that now that Oracle is a hardware company, they'd just love you to > buy almost twice as much disk (from them). I doubt that is a driving factor here... > *Again*, this is why if you have particular performance requirements, > you should consult with your database vendor to determine what bandwidth > and IOPS you need, and benchmark your gear using different RAID configs. Or at a minimum, you need to define what your performance requirements are. If you can't quantify your performance requirements, you're just guessing and "taking a shot in the dark". > You may find that RAID 5 is just fine performance-wise, and you can get > around 1.7 times the storage capacity with the same rack space, heat, > and power load over RAID 10. Asking here you're just going to get people > parroting Oracle's stale recommendations and speculating wildly without > knowing anything about your workload. Well, the advise has been slightly better than that, but yes, we're all speculating without knowing anything about the workload. And I at least have stated that in my posts/replies... If a serious answer is needed, the OP needs to post the workload and performance expectations at a minimum... -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! _______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
