Re: Raid 50
- From: Mogens Nørgaard <mln@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:43:58 +0200
Why indeed stop with RAID-5 when you can do RAID-6 (aptly named for the
factor six it incurs on small writes)?
Then, finally, we could have the RAID-666.
As Cary pointed out to be, the Law Of Bigger Numbers (LOBN) applies here
- both with respect to number of IO's and number of dollars spent.
James Morle had his birthday party this previous weekend, and while
having one beer we decided to announce (jointly with the help of the
BAARF Party members, perhaps?) the RAID-42 system soon, complete with an
official-looking press release and all.
It would probably automatically produce competitive marketing papers
from the big vendors, explaining that the simplicity of RAID-510 is to
be preferred to this new, un-tested RAID-42 technology by a startup
company called BAARF Unlimited.
We all know RAID-4 (some of you might be using it without knowing it,
even!), but RAID-2 is less known - it's the first RAID-level that
introduces parity disks. And I MEAN, literally, parity DISKS. It's
beautiful. It must be a historic oversight that it's never really been used.
Mogens
Thomas Day wrote:
> <sarcasm>
> My mind immediately leapt to the RAID-555 technology; but why stop ther=
> e?
> The more you RAID-5 it the better the performance, right?
> </sarcasm>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
