Re: raid 5 disaster
- From: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Oracle-L Freelists <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:28:17 -0700
On Sat, 2004-08-14 at 07:05, Mogens Nørgaard wrote:
> Since this was the old Shark, we knew it was using cheap, slow, old
> disks (7500 RPM). And 8-pack contains 6 data disks, one dedicated parity
> disk (RAID-4) and one hot spare. So a total of 300 IO's per second per
> 8-pack was to be expected.
>
We purchased this same system several year ago at a previous employer.
When I sat down with the IBM technical consultant, I was somewhat aghast
to learn of this configuration. But, it was actually worse than you
have portrayed it.
There were 4x8 packs in this system, and they could not all be
configured the same way. Two of them were allowed to have one
less disk dedicated to overhead, which created some very odd
stripe sizes.
It wasn't bad enough that the only configuration available was
RAID-4/5.
I wasn't impressed. The Sharks didn't go into production until
after I left the company, but I was told by a project mgr on
the DW project the performance was indeed less than stellar.
BAARF!
Wish I had had my 'No RAID5' hat then.
Jared
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
