Re: Raid 50
- From: Mogens Nørgaard <mln@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:34:14 +0200
The BAARF membership template (ie an email to me :) ) is on baarf.com -
we would like people to submit a statement regarding RAID-F also, but
just the name will give them party membership. You, Paul, of course
don't need to do this - I've given you membership number 62, which
should be visible on the website at some point in the near future :).
What a fantastic concept of RAID-50. I've always loved the idea of
selling customers RAID-5 solutions, and then mirror them. With the idea
of striping across RAID-5 sets, whole new possibilities arise.
For instance, we could mirror this striped RAID-5 idea and get RAID-510.
But why stop there? The striping in itself can give problems, so why not
use a more secure striping technlogy, namely RAID-5? So we could start
out RAID-5'ing the RAID-5 sets, thus getting RAID-55. THEN we could
mirror that solution, arriving at the incredible RAID-551 setup.
So that was the fun of it. Now for some slightly more serious comments:
I've heard about situations where DBA's, sysadmins, and other people who
know stuff have fought the RAID-5 madness from the vendors, and then
being offered that they can have RAID-0, or RAID-1, or maybe even
RAID-10, ON TOP of the RAID-5 implementation. That way everybody gets
what they want, don't they? I didn't believe it the first time I heard
it, but it would appear to be something the poor sales reps are now
doing as the big compromise, and management typically don't want to
listen to all that technical stuff from the techies, so this is a good
solution :-))).
I think it's a very good idea, too. I want more RAID-5, and the sooner
the better.
Kind regards,
An anonymous director from a consulting company... aka Mogens
Paul Drake wrote:
> --- "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>con: you lose some level of redundancy. Instead of
>>mirror pairs of two disks,
>>you have raid5 sets of N (usually 4 or 8) disks. A
>>double fault is more
>>likely with a raid5 set. It is still a possibility
>>with raid10, too.
>
>
> since I'm not a BAARF member as of yet, I can still
> discuss this. Mogens, you could fix that :)
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
