Re: Informix and HP AutoRaid

>Hardware: HP 9000 / K200 class >OS: HPUX 10.20 >IDS: 7.30.uc7 > >There's talk of getting an HP AutoRaid assembly for our POS / >warehousing system (using the 'other' database on a HP K570). I've come >to understand that the box in question will have the ability to house >our Informix data as well (accessed from the K200). While I've cut my >teeth on data/disk configurations and fragmentation, this possibility >sounds very different from the system I've grown to know and love <G>. >I have a few questions: > >1. Is this setup reasonable? Difficult to say. I would certainly try to separate the Informix data from the other (have separate spindles.) >2. What are the differences from a DBA's point of view? I'm used to >disk setup, data placement, fragmentation, etc. Does this setup relieve >the DBA of those type of responsibilities? Not really. It depends on how you use the RAID. Striping will relieve you of most of the placement issues, but then fragmentation becomes difficult (in other words, if you think you need fragmentation, but can't work out a policy, let the hardware do it for you. :-) But it brings with its own set of configuration hassles. :) >3. Are there some 'gotchas'? I've heard that Informix and RAID may not >mix. We're probably split 50-50 between OLTP and batch processing. Sight unseen, I'm going to back Art's inevitable post: don't use RAID5. If he doesn't post, go to dejanews and check out his previous posts on the matter... :-) >4. In relation to 2), what setup and maintenance issues exist in this >environment? I'm able to tell on which disk my tables are; I know where >everything is. How different is AutoRaid? Very (depending on how you set it up! :) For example, if you stripe, it becomes difficult to work out where things are. If you just mirror, you will still know where everything is. Usually, it's somewhere in the middle. :) >5. Anything I left out? Probably, but I can't think of it either... :-) -- "I'll Be Back" Obnoxio ************************************************ Sane? Hell, if I was sane, why would I be here? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: [SNIP] > >3. Are there some 'gotchas'? I've heard that Informix and RAID > may not > >mix. We're probably split 50-50 between OLTP and batch processing. > > Sight unseen, I'm going to back Art's inevitable post: don't use > RAID5. If he doesn't post, go to dejanews and check out his > previous posts on the matter... :-) I can resist climbing on my soap box and posting and anti-RAID5 message. Really I can. I CAN I CAN! Oh this is a post, darn! Well I refuse to get on the box anyway. Like the "Clown" said check out my previous posts on the subject. [SNIP] Art S. Kagel

I guess that's a problem with AutoRaid . . . my data might be under RAID5 or RAID 1 or RAID 0. I'm still curious if any one out there is actually using it. John Carlson Informix DBA WHSmith USA Art S. Kagel wrote: > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > [SNIP] > > >3. Are there some 'gotchas'? I've heard that Informix and RAID > > may not > > >mix. We're probably split 50-50 between OLTP and batch processing. > > > > Sight unseen, I'm going to back Art's inevitable post: don't use > > RAID5. If he doesn't post, go to dejanews and check out his > > previous posts on the matter... :-) > > I can resist climbing on my soap box and posting and anti-RAID5 message. > Really I can. I CAN I CAN! Oh this is a post, darn! Well I refuse to > get on the box anyway. Like the "Clown" said check out my previous > posts on the subject. > > [SNIP] > > Art S. Kagel