Re: RE: A question for great Informix minds.....
What about using RAID 5 with caching???? How about having data in RAID 5 and rootdbs, temp spaces physical log & logical logs in RAID 1? >>> Paul Watson <PWatson@Lastminute.com> 3/30/00 12:06:12 PM >>> Somewhere between significant and lots:-)) The last time I timed this I say a reduction of 90% of confirm to disk times, same hardware, same test etc, the only change was the disk were re-configured from RAID to straight mirroring (Couldn't do ten) -----Original Message----- From: Leonids.Voroncovs@dati.lv [mailto:Leonids.Voroncovs@dati.lv] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:38 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: A question for great Informix minds..... Hello. "Art S. Kagel & Family" wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > The 10 Golden rules are: > > Rule number 1: Don't use RAID 5. ...... > > Rule number 10: Don't use RAID 5. > Rule number 11: See rules 1-10! Can You please estimate ( in % ) performance increasing after switching the drive from RAID 5 to RAID 10? > Art S. Kagel & Family > kagel@erols.com Leonid Vorontsov Leonids.Voroncovs@dati.lv
Tracy Sweeney wrote: > What about using RAID 5 with caching???? > How about having data in RAID 5 and rootdbs, temp spaces physical log & logical logs in RAID 1? NO RAID5! NO RAID5! NO RAID5! NO RAID5! NO RAID5! Got it? Look if you allow RAID5 and end up with data loss your job's on the line. If you at least make LOTS of noise about the evils of RAID5 and how much cheaper disks are than finding and/or training a new DBA when you are canned or leave and than your time, overtime, and grief to come in and try to recover, not to mention cheaper than lost work and lost business; then, even if no one believes you, it will be you waving goodbye to the sysadmin or manager who did not buy your arguments rather than the other way around. We were a strict RAID5 shop when I came in. After all with nearly 1,000 drives who wouldn't want to save tons of $$? When I took over the DBA slot I pushed for three things: Move to 7.xx, turn on logging and replace RAID5 for database chunks with RAID10. The first became possible when 7.21 worked properly. Getting logging turned on saved me from months of working nights and weekends rebuilding indexes trashed by crashes. Finally when an entire lot of IBM drives failed and had to be replaced due to partial media failure over time leading to catastrophic spindle freezeup, and RAID5 trashed several servers I finally got RAID10 and have not had to recover a single server due to disk, power supply, or controller failure since. Recently our internal systems manager, who specifies ALL hardware configurations changed all of our servers from RAID5 to RAID10 based on the experience I have had with the Informix RAID10 arrays he reluctantly allowed me three years ago. Art S. Kagel > > > >>> Paul Watson <PWatson@Lastminute.com> 3/30/00 12:06:12 PM >>> > Somewhere between significant and lots:-)) > > The last time I timed this I say a reduction of 90% of confirm to > disk times, same hardware, same test etc, the only change was > the disk were re-configured from RAID to straight mirroring (Couldn't do > ten) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonids.Voroncovs@dati.lv [mailto:Leonids.Voroncovs@dati.lv] > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:38 PM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: A question for great Informix minds..... > > Hello. > "Art S. Kagel & Family" wrote: > > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > > The 10 Golden rules are: > > > Rule number 1: Don't use RAID 5. > > ...... > > > > Rule number 10: Don't use RAID 5. > > Rule number 11: See rules 1-10! > > Can You please estimate ( in % ) performance increasing after > switching the drive from RAID 5 to RAID 10? > > > Art S. Kagel & Family > > kagel@erols.com > > Leonid Vorontsov > Leonids.Voroncovs@dati.lv