Re: Raid 5 for oracle
From: Brad (xxxxxxx_at_xxx.xxx)
Date: 07/03/04
- Next message: Peter Arnold: "Re: Dynamic DNS not working with Solaris DHCP/DNS server and win clients"
- Previous message: David Combs: "Re: Anyone using UFS snapshots?"
- In reply to: McBofh: "Re: Raid 5 for oracle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 17:54:38 -0400
"McBofh" <james.N0SPAm.mcpherson@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40E57871.9010107@optusnet.com.au...
> Bridge wrote:
> > I am creating a raid 5 device for oracle.
> > Could some one tell what the interlace and inode size to use to get
> > better performance?
>
> Firstly, "better performance" compared to what?
>
> Secondly, your DBA should be telling you what is required
> performance-wise from the storage. This includes
>
> read/write mix
> expected proportion of random versus sequential io
> headroom (ie, how much growth allowed)
> whether raw or filesystem (ufs / vxfs, then the myriad
> of options like directio, forcedirectio, qlog etc)
>
>
> If you're using _software_ raid5 I suggest to you that
> you're not using the best option. Hardware raid5 is
> quite fine because you don't have to spend your server's
> cpu cycles recalculating parity all the time.
>
Even with hardware, Raid 5 is not always the best. Using HP HSG-80 raid
controllers, 0+1 has shown us better I/O throughput than Raid 5.
Brad
- Next message: Peter Arnold: "Re: Dynamic DNS not working with Solaris DHCP/DNS server and win clients"
- Previous message: David Combs: "Re: Anyone using UFS snapshots?"
- In reply to: McBofh: "Re: Raid 5 for oracle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|