RE: RAID Question

Posted in 2000

Obnoxio The Clown — Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:30:01 -0000 — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

From: Benny Lago <benlag@aent.com> > >Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of fragmentation. > >In other words wouldn't all the data (and indexes) be on the same set of >physical disks? Eh? OK, let's start again: 1. 16 disks in total? 2. Mirror pairs (8 sets of 2 disks.) 3. Stripe across one set of 8 disks and create 2GB logical volumes across the stripe (144 x 2GB logical disks) 4. Now fragment tables across multiple logical volumes. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

↪ replying to Obnoxio The Clown

benlag@aent.com — Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:13:12 GMT — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

Oh. Interesting config. I will definitely consider it. Thanks a lot for your help, Benny Lago Alliance Entertainment, Inc. In article <9015ju$ecr$1@news.xmission.com>, "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: Benny Lago <benlag@aent.com> > > > >Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of fragmentation. > > > >In other words wouldn't all the data (and indexes) be on the same set of > >physical disks? > > Eh? > > OK, let's start again: > > 1. 16 disks in total? > 2. Mirror pairs (8 sets of 2 disks.) > 3. Stripe across one set of 8 disks and create 2GB logical volumes across > the stripe (144 x 2GB logical disks) > 4. Now fragment tables across multiple logical volumes. > ________________________________________________________________________ _____________ > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Glossary

fragmentation