Re: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- From: "Jared Still" <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:28:08 -0800
On 10/30/06, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mitigated, yes, but not eliminated. At some point the cache will be
exhausted, and then performance will hit the floor. Bear in mind that you
will likely have Oracle and filesystem cache's involved as well so the
caching algorithm of the hardware will have to be one that doesn't cache
blocks held in the other two cache's - clever stuff hey, ask how the SAN
does it. You'll also need the SAN to guarantee that all writes to CACHE will
never be lost, does it?
As you have implied, saturating the cache is not too difficult.
As for cache writes never being lost: what good is the guarantee when
the cache writes *are* lost? Been there, done that, wasn't much fun.
--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- From: Kevin Closson
Other related posts:
- » RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- » Re: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- » Re: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- » RE: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- » Re: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
Mitigated, yes, but not eliminated. At some point the cache will be exhausted, and then performance will hit the floor. Bear in mind that you will likely have Oracle and filesystem cache's involved as well so the caching algorithm of the hardware will have to be one that doesn't cache blocks held in the other two cache's - clever stuff hey, ask how the SAN does it. You'll also need the SAN to guarantee that all writes to CACHE will never be lost, does it?
- RE: RAID 5+1 and BAARF
- From: Kevin Closson