Re: Mirroring Alternatives HP-UX

In article <6vu9iq$ra7$1@news.xmission.com>, David Bruce <dbruce@us.dhl.com> writes > >We are having the discussion on what is better - OS mirroring vs Informix >mirroring. We are trying to establish a standard across all the instances and >would >like input on what other shops have standardized on and what they see as the >benefits. Are goal is to maintain good performance while being able to have >minimum >down time and point-in-time recoverability. > >We have a mixed environment with RAID stripped volumes and RAID 0+1 volumes. >All >database spaces will be mirrored. We have read the Admin. Guide and the >Performance >Tuning Guide, but no clear decision on which way to go. Some believe the OS >mirroring gives 10% better performance, but the Admin. Guide states you need >Informix mirroring allowes the server to do split reads to improve read >performance. > >So is there a right answer? If not what factors need to be evaluated to No, it depend upon how intelligent the OS mirroring is and whether or not it can do split reads. Hardware mirroring is another option and does off load some of the work to the disk controller, also the disk controller will be optimized more for the hardware than either the OS or Informix. Finally hardware mirroring is invisible to the OS and hence should allow simpler recovery from a failed disk... >determine >the best solution for performance? Other reference locations would also be >appreciated. > >-- > R/ > David S. Bruce > _____________________________________________________________ > > -- David Williams Maintainer of the Informix FAQ Primary site (Beta Version) http://www.smooth1.demon.co.uk Official site http://www.iiug.org/techinfo/faq/faq_top.html I see you standin', Standin' on your own, It's such a lonely place for you, For you to be If you need a shoulder, Or if you need a friend, I'll be here standing, Until the bitter end... So don't chastise me Or think I, I mean you harm... All I ever wanted Was for you To know that I care