Hello Paul ALL our oracle servers are windows NT/2000 with raid 5 arrays for all the files.
1) The point that Oracle does not support online redo logs on stripped partition seems wrong to me. 2) There was a discussion on the list a while ago about the write speed times between raid 5 and raid 0+1. Anyway, since raid 5 are usually implemented with a big controller cache (backed up by a battery) your database writes to the cache and you get reasonable response time. We have a heavy online application with about 50 users that runs OK on windows NT with 2 processor and 5 disks raid 5 array. Yechiel Adar Mehish ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:03 PM > Hi all, > > A 3rd-party software vendor is coming in to install their application on a > new Windows 2000 server. This application uses Oracle, so they'll also be > installing Oracle 8.1.7 as part of their setup session. However, they've > sent our server/hardware guys the following, specifying how they want the > disks configuring on the server: > > - - - - - > "As to the RAID recommendations the issue is that Oracle do not support > installations where the redo logs are on any sort of a stripped partition. > My recommendation would be to create a mirror pair out of two of the disks. > This can be partitioned for the system and the redo logs. The remainder of > the disks can be RAID 5. Note that the RAID 5 array is where the actual > database and archive logs are stored. In theory If you lose both disks on > the mirror you would still have enough information on the RAID 5 partition > to save the database." > - - - - - > > Now, disk configuration's one of my weakest spots, but I have the following > two questions about their instructions: > > 1. Is their point about Oracle not supporting redo logs on striped > partitions true, or are they talking rubbish? All our UNIX servers with > Oracle use RAID 0+1 (mirroring plus striping) on all their disks, but is it > different for Windows servers? I must say I'd never heard of this > restriction before, but I'm willing to be enlightened! Anybody? > > 2. They're recommending RAID 5 for a transaction-heavy application server, > here. Surely that's wrong? I thought I understood that RAID 5 was great for > file servers but lousy for servers running transactio-heavy business > applications. What's the view of you guys on this? > > Please give me your views, I know we have some very experienced people on > this list! > > Best regards, > > Paul > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com > -- > Author: Paul Vincent > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Yechiel Adar INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
