Re: RAID 5 7+1 with oracle
- From: "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:44:10 +0100
I'm not convinced your interpretation of the graphs is correct. Left graph p9: Total for 4 disks (2d + 2d) Writes on the 10K rpm start to hit their catastrophe point at 400 IO/s Writes on the 15K rpm start to hit their catastrophe point at 600 IO/s Right graph p10: Total of 8 disks (7D + 1P) Writes on the 10K rpm start to hit their catastrophe point at 400 IO/s Writes on the 15K rpm start to hit their catastrophe point at 600 IO/s Exactly the same limit despite having twice the spindles. If you want to compare write TIMES, you should be looking atthe right graph on p9: 4D + 4D (eight disks) which get to the catastrophe point at 800 and 1200 IO/S
The same applies with read TIMES - surely you should be comparing the two right-hand graphs. (I'm a little surprised by the similarity of the graphs for reads - in a simplistc queueing theory model I would approximate the RAID-10 as 4 x M/M/2, and the RAID-5 as 8 * M/M/1 with 7/8ths load - and expected the M/M/2 to outperform the other). But maybe it's notreally valid to call RAID10 M/M/2; maybe hp just have some dirty tricks (or errors) in their algorithms that even things out.
If you want to compare volume of data stored, of course, that's a completely different matter. Regards Jonathan Lewis http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:35:14 -0700 From: "Greg Rahn" <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: RAID 5 7+1 with oracle In order to avoid a religious war I'll just offer this: Look at: http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-7923ENW.pdf This document shows that RAID5 (7D+1P : page 10 right graph) is far better than RAID 1(2D+2D : page 9 left graph) both on read and write operation.