Jon, It's one of those "how many bags will I need in the supermarket?" questions - it depends.
Consider: - RAID 1+0 is much better than 0+1. - Three disks is not much w.r.t. IO capability. If you have three concurrent users you'll be OK :) - Size doesn't matter (who cares if it's 10, 36 or 73 Gig disks? It's the IO capabilitity that counts) - I'm new to this list, so I don't know if this will work, but I've attached a brilliant presentation by our old friend James Morle (check out www.ScaleAbilities.com) regarding SAN, NAS and RAS (Random Acronym Seminar). - If you're only striping across three disks (is that really a SAN?) just SAME (Stripe And Mirror Everything). It might not be good, but it's simple. Jon Behnke wrote: >We are in the process of setting up a SAN using RAID 0+1 for our database. >In our current environment, we are able to separate our tables, indexes, >rollback segments, and archive logs on different disks. On the SAN we would >have six 73 gig disks on RAID 0+1 for a total of about 210 Gig of usable >space (3 disks worth of space). > >Some white papers that I have read suggest attempting to separate the data, >indexes, and rollback segments on separate RAID volumes, and others simply >suggest that the performance boost of striping will supercede the separation >of these items. > >Can anyone offer any comments or suggestions? > >Jon Behnke >Applications Development Manager >Industrial Electric Wire & Cable >Phone (262) 957-1147 Fax (262) 957-1647 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Sane_SAN_WP.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
