RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Problem with head-to-head price comparisons is that software RAID level 0 has hidden costs that a lot of folk might not understand before purchasing. For example, I would argue that software RAID level 0 costs a heck of a lot more than the list price, because it robs CPU capacity from your applications. Cary Millsap Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.hotsos.com Upcoming events: - Hotsos Clinic 101 in Denver, Sydney - Hotsos Symposium 2004, March 7-10 Dallas - Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... -Original Message- Jesse, Rich Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L How's about price? That's pretty important to some folk. :) Rich Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- From: Matthew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Cary Millsap 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Yes, it isn't quite the same as actually growing a RAID device, but it kind of looks like that in the end. It certainly requires some good management skills, or you can create quite a mess. With power comes complexity. Jared Matthew Zito [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/2003 05:14 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Yes and no - its a semantical issue. If you want to grow a Veritas volume with the RAID under hardware control, either you need to have free space on the exposed RAID device the volume is using as a subdisk (to use Veritas parlance), in which case you're just using more free space on the existing RAID group, or you need to expand the volume onto another exposed RAID device. Either way, you're not actually growing the RAIDed device - just expanding the volume onto additional pre-existing space. Certainly, all LVMs allow you to resize volumes - when they include a software RAID component, you gain an additional level of flexibility over what most hardware RAID arrays offer. Veritas, in my mind, is the gold standard. I haven't seen another LVM+RAID come close to the featureset and elegance that they offer. Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Importance: High You can grow volumes though without putting the RAID under software control. Veritas Volume Mgr allows you to do that. Jared Matthew Zito [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/2003 09:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Still Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Tim, Are you suggesting that HW RAID 1 with SW RAID 0 is a better combination than HW RAID 1 and HW RAID 0? If so, why? Jared On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:59, Tim Gorman wrote: Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays, should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure... The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if the HW supports it... on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
It robs of CPU power, that's true, but I've never seen a place where CPU consumption would go above 30% on average. If it does, then it's time to upgrade, or to quote the Taco Bell dog, you need a bigger box. With approximately 70% left idle, companies usually have a few percent of the CPU power to dedicate for RAID-0. After all, all those boxes have nfs daemons, sendmail, lpd/lp/CUPS, xdm/gdm, automounter and some other daemons running. Database server seldomly needs to export file systems, route mail (well, that comes in handy here and there), manipulate printers or scan the units for a music CD. If I want to play Kashmir or Stairway To Heaven, I'm not going to (ab)use my database server for that purpose. Those few percent spent on RAID-0 are quite insignificant in comparison with the CPU percentage wasted by routed, gated, walld, talkd, xdm and alike. The sad truth is that people no longer tune their systems, because a bigger system is actually cheaper then an SA needed to tune it properly. We're talking about the SUV mentality translated into IT. You don't actually care whether an additional gallon of washing liquid is wasting space in your SUV when you have enough room to accommodate a medium sized elementary school in your vehicle. -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -Original Message- Millsap Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:39 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Problem with head-to-head price comparisons is that software RAID level 0 has hidden costs that a lot of folk might not understand before purchasing. For example, I would argue that software RAID level 0 costs a heck of a lot more than the list price, because it robs CPU capacity from your applications. Cary Millsap Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.hotsos.com Upcoming events: - Hotsos Clinic 101 in Denver, Sydney - Hotsos Symposium 2004, March 7-10 Dallas - Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... -Original Message- Jesse, Rich Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L How's about price? That's pretty important to some folk. :) Rich Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- From: Matthew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Cary Millsap 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). Note: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Still Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Tim, Are you suggesting that HW RAID 1 with SW RAID 0 is a better combination than HW RAID 1 and HW RAID 0? If so, why? Jared On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:59, Tim Gorman wrote: Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays, should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure... The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if the HW supports it... on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jared Still 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
Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Title: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Ask the BAARF committee NO RAID 5(or four or free ;o) -Original Message- From: Schauss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Schauss, Peter 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
How's about price? That's pretty important to some folk. :) Rich Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- From: Matthew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
But if the little CD drive on the server that doesn't understand multi-session cds isn't for Stairway to Heaven what on earth can be its purpose? Surely every it-professional knows that you install from a network location whilst listening to music on the Headphones - how else do you avoid mgmt saying 'is it installed yet?' Niall -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala Sent: 14 August 2003 14:59 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces It robs of CPU power, that's true, but I've never seen a place where CPU consumption would go above 30% on average. If it does, then it's time to upgrade, or to quote the Taco Bell dog, you need a bigger box. With approximately 70% left idle, companies usually have a few percent of the CPU power to dedicate for RAID-0. After all, all those boxes have nfs daemons, sendmail, lpd/lp/CUPS, xdm/gdm, automounter and some other daemons running. Database server seldomly needs to export file systems, route mail (well, that comes in handy here and there), manipulate printers or scan the units for a music CD. If I want to play Kashmir or Stairway To Heaven, I'm not going to (ab)use my database server for that purpose. Those few percent spent on RAID-0 are quite insignificant in comparison with the CPU percentage wasted by routed, gated, walld, talkd, xdm and alike. The sad truth is that people no longer tune their systems, because a bigger system is actually cheaper then an SA needed to tune it properly. We're talking about the SUV mentality translated into IT. You don't actually care whether an additional gallon of washing liquid is wasting space in your SUV when you have enough room to accommodate a medium sized elementary school in your vehicle. -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -Original Message- Millsap Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:39 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Problem with head-to-head price comparisons is that software RAID level 0 has hidden costs that a lot of folk might not understand before purchasing. For example, I would argue that software RAID level 0 costs a heck of a lot more than the list price, because it robs CPU capacity from your applications. Cary Millsap Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.hotsos.com Upcoming events: - Hotsos Clinic 101 in Denver, Sydney - Hotsos Symposium 2004, March 7-10 Dallas - Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... -Original Message- Jesse, Rich Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L How's about price? That's pretty important to some folk. :) Rich Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- From: Matthew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Cary Millsap INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services
Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Matthew Zito 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
I agree with your point, but it's often not what I see. It's all a matter of degree. A lot of the systems I see have 100% CPU utilization for hours on end, and upgrading is the wrong answer. If you're lucky, an upgrade will give you a 2x to 3x performance boost. Often after some SQL optimization, however, we'll reduce half the system's workload by a factor of 10,000 or more for the labor cost of maybe 1/4 of an upgrade's cost. On one system I saw a few years ago, a variety of configuration errors (one of which was to use software striping and mirroring) actually accounted for almost 40% of the total CPU capacity on the system. Cary Millsap Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.hotsos.com Upcoming events: - Hotsos Clinic 101 in Denver, Sydney - Hotsos Symposium 2004, March 7-10 Dallas - Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... -Original Message- Mladen Gogala Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:59 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L It robs of CPU power, that's true, but I've never seen a place where CPU consumption would go above 30% on average. If it does, then it's time to upgrade, or to quote the Taco Bell dog, you need a bigger box. With approximately 70% left idle, companies usually have a few percent of the CPU power to dedicate for RAID-0. After all, all those boxes have nfs daemons, sendmail, lpd/lp/CUPS, xdm/gdm, automounter and some other daemons running. Database server seldomly needs to export file systems, route mail (well, that comes in handy here and there), manipulate printers or scan the units for a music CD. If I want to play Kashmir or Stairway To Heaven, I'm not going to (ab)use my database server for that purpose. Those few percent spent on RAID-0 are quite insignificant in comparison with the CPU percentage wasted by routed, gated, walld, talkd, xdm and alike. The sad truth is that people no longer tune their systems, because a bigger system is actually cheaper then an SA needed to tune it properly. We're talking about the SUV mentality translated into IT. You don't actually care whether an additional gallon of washing liquid is wasting space in your SUV when you have enough room to accommodate a medium sized elementary school in your vehicle. -- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -Original Message- Millsap Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:39 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Problem with head-to-head price comparisons is that software RAID level 0 has hidden costs that a lot of folk might not understand before purchasing. For example, I would argue that software RAID level 0 costs a heck of a lot more than the list price, because it robs CPU capacity from your applications. Cary Millsap Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.hotsos.com Upcoming events: - Hotsos Clinic 101 in Denver, Sydney - Hotsos Symposium 2004, March 7-10 Dallas - Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... -Original Message- Jesse, Rich Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L How's about price? That's pretty important to some folk. :) Rich Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- From: Matthew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Tim, Are you suggesting that HW RAID 1 with SW RAID 0 is a better combination than HW RAID 1 and HW RAID 0? If so, why? Jared On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:59, Tim Gorman wrote: Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays, should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure... The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if the HW supports it... on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jared Still 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Title: Message The correct statement is "no RAID-5". I believe that RAID 1+0 (mirrorin', strippin' and slidin') is OK. --Mladen GogalaOracle DBA -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefick Ronald S Contr ESC/HRIDDSent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:35 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Ask the BAARF committee NO RAID 5(or four or free ;o) -Original Message- From: Schauss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Schauss, Peter 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). Note: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error,please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.Wang Trading LLCand any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity.
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Title: Message Yes and no - its a semantical issue. If you want to grow a Veritas volume with the RAID under hardware control, either you need to have free space on the exposed RAID device the volume is using as a subdisk (to use Veritas parlance), in which case you're just using more free space on the existing RAID group, or you need to expand the volume onto another exposed RAID device. Either way, you're not actually "growing" the RAIDed device - just expanding the volume onto additional pre-existing space. Certainly, all LVMs allow you to resize volumes - when they include a software RAID component, you gain an additional level of flexibility over what most hardware RAID arrays offer. Veritas, in my mind, is the gold standard. I haven't seen another LVM+RAID come close to the featureset and elegance that they offer. Thanks, Matt --Matthew ZitoGridApp SystemsEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cell: 646-220-3551Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:03 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespacesImportance: HighYou can grow volumes though without putting the RAID under software control. Veritas Volume Mgr allows you to do that. Jared "Matthew Zito" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/2003 09:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespacesThe _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that softwareRAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones.For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allowyou to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed inhardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of thebetter software RAID implementations even allow for online volume typeconversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirroredpair, as a random example.Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneousadvantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardwareRAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :)Thanks,Matt--Matthew ZitoGridApp SystemsEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cell: 646-220-3551Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Still Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Tim, Are you suggesting that HW RAID 1 with SW RAID 0 is a better combination than HW RAID 1 and HW RAID 0? If so, why? Jared On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:59, Tim Gorman wrote: Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays, should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure...The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if the HW supports it... on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but thatwasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating aset of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then stripingacross them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should oneside of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover moregracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as youstate. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying "max allocation policy", which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximatelyRAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per "stripe"). Still, it beats the heckout of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not supportRaid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which oneis best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of r
Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays, should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure... The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if the HW supports it... on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
You can grow volumes though without putting the RAID under software control. Veritas Volume Mgr allows you to do that. Jared Matthew Zito [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/2003 09:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To:Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones. For example, there are a number of software RAID implementations that allow you to grow RAID-0 volumes, something that is generally not allowed in hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored pair, as a random example. Beyond that, there's no reason to have software RAID. Any other extraneous advantages can be gleaned by using a traditional VM on top of hardware RAID-ed devices. And even some of that stuff is better in hardware. :) Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Still Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Tim, Are you suggesting that HW RAID 1 with SW RAID 0 is a better combination than HW RAID 1 and HW RAID 0? If so, why? Jared On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:59, Tim Gorman wrote: Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays, should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure... The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if the HW supports it... on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Is this perhaps a T-3 Disk Storage Array? -Original Message- To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: 8/12/2003 2:24 PM Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Schauss, Peter 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Freeman Robert - IL 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
For the record, I often suggest using RAID level 5 with the group size set to 2. :)=) (In case you're interested, RAID level 5 with G=2 *is* RAID level 1.) Cary Millsap Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.hotsos.com Upcoming events: - Hotsos Clinic 101 in Denver, Sydney - Hotsos Symposium 2004, March 7-10 Dallas - Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... -Original Message- Matthew Zito Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:49 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Depends on the storage array and your particular configuration. You could certainly create a bundle of RAID-1 luns/volumes and then create a larger concatenated volume across them, but you're very likely to end up with hotspots on the first few disks. Whether that matters or not is dependent on your data locality and the craftiness of your storage array. Or, use the LVM to create a striped lv across the exposed RAID-1 volumes. Create a dedicated VG for your raid-1 PVs and then build some striped LVs out of them. Then take a vacation in your RV. :) Also, be aware that many many storage arrays have limitations on the number of RAID groups/volumes you can create, so you could easily be shooting yourself in the foot for the future by creating, say, 50 RAID-1 volumes when there's a limit of 64 raid groups on the array. As far as RAID-5, I give all due respect and tithe to our BAARF leaders (the check's in the mail), but you might actually be able to do RAID-5. BUT - any array that can do RAID-5 but not RAID-0+1 makes me very skeptical of the quality of its RAID-5 implementation. What kind of storage array is this that can't do raid 0+1? Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schauss, Peter Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Schauss, Peter 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Matthew Zito 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Cary Millsap 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).
Re: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM. RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your storage array handle - software RAID-1 requires your host to generate double the I/Os and should one side of the pair fail, hardware arrays tend to recover more gracefully than software raid. RAID-0, by comparison, is very easy. Thanks, Matt - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:44 PM The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state. However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying max allocation policy, which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs) across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at a large granularity (i.e. 4M, 8M, 16M per stripe). Still, it beats the heck out of RAID5... on 8/12/03 12:24 PM, Schauss, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Matthew Zito 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Depends on the storage array and your particular configuration. You could certainly create a bundle of RAID-1 luns/volumes and then create a larger concatenated volume across them, but you're very likely to end up with hotspots on the first few disks. Whether that matters or not is dependent on your data locality and the craftiness of your storage array. Or, use the LVM to create a striped lv across the exposed RAID-1 volumes. Create a dedicated VG for your raid-1 PVs and then build some striped LVs out of them. Then take a vacation in your RV. :) Also, be aware that many many storage arrays have limitations on the number of RAID groups/volumes you can create, so you could easily be shooting yourself in the foot for the future by creating, say, 50 RAID-1 volumes when there's a limit of 64 raid groups on the array. As far as RAID-5, I give all due respect and tithe to our BAARF leaders (the check's in the mail), but you might actually be able to do RAID-5. BUT - any array that can do RAID-5 but not RAID-0+1 makes me very skeptical of the quality of its RAID-5 implementation. What kind of storage array is this that can't do raid 0+1? Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schauss, Peter Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10. Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will have a mix of read and write activity. Thanks, Peter Schauss -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Schauss, Peter 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Matthew Zito 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).
RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Title: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces Mladen, I'll send you some developers that will code some JAVA stuff that will pegg all your CPUs. Raj -Original Message- From: Mladen Gogala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:59 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces It robs of CPU power, that's true, but I've never seen a place where CPU consumption would go above 30% on average. This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify corporate MIS at (860) 766-2000 and delete this e-mail message from your computer, Thank you.*2
