On 17/12/03 3:45 pm, "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Robert Creager wrote: > >> When grilled further on (Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:30:04 -0600), >> Patrick Spinler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed: >> >>> >>> According to the theory they expound, a database with any significant >>> write activity whatsoever should never be on raid 5, but instead be on >>> raid 0+1. >>> >> >> Kind of related and a point of reference. We use ClearCase and have many >> multiple Gb vob's(databases). We were using RAID-5, but had to back off to >> RAID >> 0+1 because of performance reasons (which was indicated in the manual, once >> you >> read it...). This would happen around 1-2Gb's vob size. Our usage of CC >> provides heavy writing activity to the underlying dB. >> >> I don't know what kind of dB engine Atria->Rational->IBM has implemented >> underneath, or even it it would look like a dB to someone who knew the >> difference... > > Just wondering, was that on hardware or software RAID5, and if hardware > did it have battery backed cache controllers? Makes a huge difference. I > would never use SW RAID5 for heavily written databases. Hi Scott, What level of activity would you call "heavily written"? Thanks Adam -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
