This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=====002_Dragon751246812548_=====
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brooks, Russ=A3=AC=C4=FA=BA=C3=A3=A1
=A1=A1=A1=A1Can you show us your whitepaper? Where did you get it?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 2002-10-28 14:23:00
=C4=FA=D4=DA=C0=B4=D0=C5=D6=D0=D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Hi,
I just got forwarded a whitepaper from Hitachi and Oracle, that=
compairs raid 5+ and raid 1 using the TPC-C benchmark test=
suite. The claim is that raid 5 is as fast or faster. While=
I'm waiting for a comparison or raid 5+ with raid 0+1, I thought=
I'd take a poll with the list. The benchmark is using the=
Hitachi 7700E.
Has anyone heard other recommendations attributed to Oracle=
that are pushing raid 5+ as the configuraton for "unrivaled=
performance"? Has new disk technology changed the general=
conception that raid 0 or 0+1 provides better performance than=
other raid levels?
Thanks,
Russ
=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
=3D
=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=D6=C2
=C0=F1=A3=A1
=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1chao_ping
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A12002-10-29
--=====002_Dragon751246812548_=====
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dgb2312"=
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#eaeaea><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5>Brooks,=
Russ=A3=AC=C4=FA=BA=C3=A3=A1</FONT> </FONT>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5 size=3D2>=A1=A1=A1=A1Can you show us your=
whitepaper? Where did you
get it? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5 size=3D2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5 size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
2002-10-28 14:23:00 =C4=FA=D4=DA=C0=B4=D0=C5=D6=D0=D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>
<TABLE width=3D"100%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=3D"100%">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;=
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT face=3DArial
size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT face=3DArial=
size=3D2> I
just got forwarded a whitepaper from Hitachi and Oracle,=
that compairs
raid 5+ and raid 1 using the TPC-C benchmark test=
suite. The claim
is that raid 5 is as fast or faster. While I'm=
waiting for a
comparison or raid 5+ with raid 0+1, I thought I'd take a=
poll with the
list. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN=
class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT
face=3DArial size=3D2>The benchmark is using the Hitachi
7700E.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT face=3DArial=
size=3D2> Has
anyone heard other recommendations attributed to Oracle=
that are pushing
raid 5+ as the configuraton for "unrivaled=
performance"? Has new
disk technology changed the general conception that raid=
0 or 0+1
provides better performance than other raid=
levels?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT face=3DArial
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT face=3DArial
size=3D2>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D791442421-28102002><FONT face=3DArial
=
size=3D2>Russ</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></=
TABLE></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5 size=3D2>=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D=
=3D =3D </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5
size=3D2>=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=D6=C2<BR>=C0=F1=A3=A1</FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5=
size=3D2>=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1chao_ping</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5 size=3D2><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5=
size=3D2>=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1</FONT><A
href=3D"mailto:chao_ping@;vip.163.com">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></FO=
NT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D=CB=CE=CC=E5=
size=3D2>=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A1=A12002-10-29</FONT></DIV>=
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
--=====002_Dragon751246812548_=====--
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: chao_ping
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
