Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Uh I would "guess" so... I don't run raid configurations but the install manual (that I wired from) doesn't put any stipulations on the use. I ran in the "higher availability configuration for years, then with all the dasd additions I've ended up going back to straight single cards (since I've only lost 1 card out of 48 (or so) in 5 years... that is just on my tsm servers, we have tons more ssa disk & controllers, which have seen equally good results) Dwight -Original Message- From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring Does that work for Raid? What about fast write? How would the caches update each other? Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Cook, Dwight E wrote: > Were you using just a single card ? > Have you ever played with "higher availability" SSA card configurations ? > Take two cards and set up something like > Card1-PortA1 -> out to drawer(s) > Card1-PortA2 <-> Card2-PortA1 > Card2-PortA2 -> out to drawer(s) > > then if either card fails, the other still drives the environment. > you can do the same with the B-Loop > > Dwight > > > -Original Message----- > From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > > One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we > had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I > were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids > on separate SSA cards. > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Environment: > > > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > > of DB volumes is required. > > > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > it > > be RISKY. > > > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > > ahead. > > > > Any comments are welcome! > > > > Regards > > > > MAhesh > > >
AW: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Hi Mahes, just few thoughts: >> 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy of DB volumes is required. It had been argumented on this forum that TSM mirroring has some advantages over OS-based Raid system. Anyway, an OS-based RAID and only single database volumes would definitely help against single disk failure as well. >> 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it be RISKY. Database backup is mandatory whether you use Raid5 of whatever else. I, for example, make full backupo each day and about 10 incremental backups in between. Be sure you can perform database restore - do test it! be sure you can afford this down time in case of need. >> IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept It´s new for me. I think it is only recommended. Raid 5 and 80 GB Database: do not forget, database updates (such as restore from backup) will take much longer with Raid5! regards juraj salak -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Mahesh Babbar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet am: Sonntag, 22. April 2001 09:53 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring Hi all, Environment: NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy of DB volumes is required. 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it be RISKY. 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall ahead. Any comments are welcome! Regards MAhesh
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Does that work for Raid? What about fast write? How would the caches update each other? Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Cook, Dwight E wrote: > Were you using just a single card ? > Have you ever played with "higher availability" SSA card configurations ? > Take two cards and set up something like > Card1-PortA1 -> out to drawer(s) > Card1-PortA2 <-> Card2-PortA1 > Card2-PortA2 -> out to drawer(s) > > then if either card fails, the other still drives the environment. > you can do the same with the B-Loop > > Dwight > > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > > One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we > had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I > were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids > on separate SSA cards. > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Environment: > > > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > > of DB volumes is required. > > > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > it > > be RISKY. > > > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > > ahead. > > > > Any comments are welcome! > > > > Regards > > > > MAhesh > > >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
I seen this situation once before when the "parity is unsynced" corruption can be caused in the filesystems on the ssa array. And cause the data to become unrecoverable. I saw this happen on an AIX 4.2.1 system before IBM told me that there was nothing that could be done to recover the data and we would have to recover from backup. -Original Message- From: Cook, Dwight E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring Were you using just a single card ? Have you ever played with "higher availability" SSA card configurations ? Take two cards and set up something like Card1-PortA1 -> out to drawer(s) Card1-PortA2 <-> Card2-PortA1 Card2-PortA2 -> out to drawer(s) then if either card fails, the other still drives the environment. you can do the same with the B-Loop Dwight -Original Message- From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids on separate SSA cards. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > Hi all, > > Environment: > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it > be RISKY. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > Any comments are welcome! > > Regards > > MAhesh > ***EMAIL DISCLAIMER** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender or contact Health Information Management (312) 996-3941.
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Were you using just a single card ? Have you ever played with "higher availability" SSA card configurations ? Take two cards and set up something like Card1-PortA1 -> out to drawer(s) Card1-PortA2 <-> Card2-PortA1 Card2-PortA2 -> out to drawer(s) then if either card fails, the other still drives the environment. you can do the same with the B-Loop Dwight -Original Message- From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids on separate SSA cards. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > Hi all, > > Environment: > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it > be RISKY. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > Any comments are welcome! > > Regards > > MAhesh >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Oh, that is odd too. Did you check to see if the FWC was actually enabled for that hdisk? It probably was. That's too bad. So I'm assuming that the FWC somehow corrupted the LV that your database was on? I'm interested because this is the way I do it. Miles --- Miles Purdy System Manager Farm Income Programs Directorate Winnipeg, MB, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557 --- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24-Apr-01 9:28:48 AM >>> Sorry, I should have said the fast write cache failed. It failed twice within a three week period. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Miles Purdy wrote: > That really seems odd. LV's and not even array's are tied to and adapter, or you >wouldn't be able to move VG's between servers. Even if an adapter fails, you can move >the fast write cache to a new card and the cache will commit any writes! Again seems >odd. > > Miles > > > >--- > Miles Purdy > System Manager > Farm Income Programs Directorate > Winnipeg, MB, CA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557 > >--- > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23-Apr-01 3:32:26 PM >>> > We only had one card. I can't tell you exactly why we lost it. The > raid came up offline, and after hours on the phone with IBM, they said > basically, that I was screwed, the raid was toast. > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Vibhute, Bandu wrote: > > > How did you lost database ? We are running some of databases in RAID-5, if > > two cards lost means it's threat to our data . After replacing SAA-Ada did > > you lost disks also? > > > > Thank you, > > Bandu Vibhute, > > Bestfoods Baking Company, > > 55 Paradise Lane, Bay Shore, NY, 11706 > > Voice: 631-951-5212, Cell: 516-702-0323 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > > > > > One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we > > had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I > > were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids > > on separate SSA cards. > > > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Environment: > > > > > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > > > > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > > > > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > > > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > > > > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > > > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > > > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > > > > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > > > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > > > > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > > > of DB volumes is required. > > >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Sorry, I should have said the fast write cache failed. It failed twice within a three week period. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Miles Purdy wrote: > That really seems odd. LV's and not even array's are tied to and adapter, or you >wouldn't be able to move VG's between servers. Even if an adapter fails, you can move >the fast write cache to a new card and the cache will commit any writes! Again seems >odd. > > Miles > > > >--- > Miles Purdy > System Manager > Farm Income Programs Directorate > Winnipeg, MB, CA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557 > >--- > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23-Apr-01 3:32:26 PM >>> > We only had one card. I can't tell you exactly why we lost it. The > raid came up offline, and after hours on the phone with IBM, they said > basically, that I was screwed, the raid was toast. > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Vibhute, Bandu wrote: > > > How did you lost database ? We are running some of databases in RAID-5, if > > two cards lost means it's threat to our data . After replacing SAA-Ada did > > you lost disks also? > > > > Thank you, > > Bandu Vibhute, > > Bestfoods Baking Company, > > 55 Paradise Lane, Bay Shore, NY, 11706 > > Voice: 631-951-5212, Cell: 516-702-0323 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > > > > > One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we > > had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I > > were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids > > on separate SSA cards. > > > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Environment: > > > > > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > > > > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > > > > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > > > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > > > > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > > > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > > > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > > > > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > > > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > > > > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > > > of DB volumes is required. > > > > > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > > it > > > be RISKY. > > > > > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > > > ahead. > > > > > > Any comments are welcome! > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > MAhesh > > > > > > > > > "WorldSecure Server " made the following > > annotations on 04/23/01 11:30:20 > > > > - > > The origin of this electronic mail message was the Internet. > > Bestfoods Baking cannot validate the authenticity > > of the sender and therefore cannot be held accountable > > for any content within. > > === > > > > > > > > "WorldSecure Server " made the following > > annotations on 04/23/01 15:05:43 > > - > > This message may contain confidential and trade secret information of Bestfoods >Baking, and be subject to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. For recipient's use >only. If you have received this message in error, please delete immediately, and >alert the sender. > > > > === > > >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
That really seems odd. LV's and not even array's are tied to and adapter, or you wouldn't be able to move VG's between servers. Even if an adapter fails, you can move the fast write cache to a new card and the cache will commit any writes! Again seems odd. Miles --- Miles Purdy System Manager Farm Income Programs Directorate Winnipeg, MB, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557 --- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23-Apr-01 3:32:26 PM >>> We only had one card. I can't tell you exactly why we lost it. The raid came up offline, and after hours on the phone with IBM, they said basically, that I was screwed, the raid was toast. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Vibhute, Bandu wrote: > How did you lost database ? We are running some of databases in RAID-5, if > two cards lost means it's threat to our data . After replacing SAA-Ada did > you lost disks also? > > Thank you, > Bandu Vibhute, > Bestfoods Baking Company, > 55 Paradise Lane, Bay Shore, NY, 11706 > Voice: 631-951-5212, Cell: 516-702-0323 > > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > > One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we > had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I > were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids > on separate SSA cards. > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Environment: > > > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > > of DB volumes is required. > > > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > it > > be RISKY. > > > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > > ahead. > > > > Any comments are welcome! > > > > Regards > > > > MAhesh > > > > > "WorldSecure Server " made the following > annotations on 04/23/01 11:30:20 > > - > The origin of this electronic mail message was the Internet. > Bestfoods Baking cannot validate the authenticity > of the sender and therefore cannot be held accountable > for any content within. > === > > > > "WorldSecure Server " made the following > annotations on 04/23/01 15:05:43 > - > This message may contain confidential and trade secret information of Bestfoods >Baking, and be subject to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. For recipient's use >only. If you have received this message in error, please delete immediately, and >alert the sender. > > === >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
We only had one card. I can't tell you exactly why we lost it. The raid came up offline, and after hours on the phone with IBM, they said basically, that I was screwed, the raid was toast. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Vibhute, Bandu wrote: > How did you lost database ? We are running some of databases in RAID-5, if > two cards lost means it's threat to our data . After replacing SAA-Ada did > you lost disks also? > > Thank you, > Bandu Vibhute, > Bestfoods Baking Company, > 55 Paradise Lane, Bay Shore, NY, 11706 > Voice: 631-951-5212, Cell: 516-702-0323 > > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > > One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we > had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I > were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids > on separate SSA cards. > > Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ > BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' > St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) > Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Environment: > > > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > > of DB volumes is required. > > > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > it > > be RISKY. > > > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > > ahead. > > > > Any comments are welcome! > > > > Regards > > > > MAhesh > > > > > "WorldSecure Server " made the following > annotations on 04/23/01 11:30:20 > > - > The origin of this electronic mail message was the Internet. > Bestfoods Baking cannot validate the authenticity > of the sender and therefore cannot be held accountable > for any content within. > === > > > > "WorldSecure Server " made the following > annotations on 04/23/01 15:05:43 > - > This message may contain confidential and trade secret information of Bestfoods >Baking, and be subject to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. For recipient's use >only. If you have received this message in error, please delete immediately, and >alert the sender. > > === >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
That is impossible :-) "Vibhute, Bandu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 04/23/2001 02:57:17 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring How did you lost database ? We are running some of databases in RAID-5, if two cards lost means it's threat to our data . After replacing SAA-Ada did you lost disks also? Thank you, Bandu Vibhute, Bestfoods Baking Company, 55 Paradise Lane, Bay Shore, NY, 11706 Voice: 631-951-5212, Cell: 516-702-0323 -Original Message- From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids on separate SSA cards. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > Hi all, > > Environment: > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it > be RISKY. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > Any comments are welcome! > > Regards > > MAhesh > "WorldSecure Server " made the following annotations on 04/23/01 11:30:20 - The origin of this electronic mail message was the Internet. Bestfoods Baking cannot validate the authenticity of the sender and therefore cannot be held accountable for any content within. === "WorldSecure Server " made the following annotations on 04/23/01 15:05:43 - This message may contain confidential and trade secret information of Bestfoods Baking, and be subject to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. For recipient's use only. If you have received this message in error, please delete immediately, and alert the sender. === $RFC822.eml
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
How did you lost database ? We are running some of databases in RAID-5, if two cards lost means it's threat to our data . After replacing SAA-Ada did you lost disks also? Thank you, Bandu Vibhute, Bestfoods Baking Company, 55 Paradise Lane, Bay Shore, NY, 11706 Voice: 631-951-5212, Cell: 516-702-0323 -Original Message- From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids on separate SSA cards. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > Hi all, > > Environment: > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it > be RISKY. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > Any comments are welcome! > > Regards > > MAhesh > "WorldSecure Server " made the following annotations on 04/23/01 11:30:20 - The origin of this electronic mail message was the Internet. Bestfoods Baking cannot validate the authenticity of the sender and therefore cannot be held accountable for any content within. === "WorldSecure Server " made the following annotations on 04/23/01 15:05:43 - This message may contain confidential and trade secret information of Bestfoods Baking, and be subject to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. For recipient's use only. If you have received this message in error, please delete immediately, and alert the sender. ===
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
One comment about the raid - we got away from SSA hardware raid after we had two SSA card failures that caused the loss of the database. If I were forced to use raid, I would have the second copy, and put the raids on separate SSA cards. Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' St. Louis, Missouri'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Mahesh Babbar wrote: > Hi all, > > Environment: > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it > be RISKY. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > Any comments are welcome! > > Regards > > MAhesh >
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
The only advantage to RAID -5 is the reduced storage requirements for redundancy. If this is the only ADSM server you have, this is the only situation I would consider it. If not, slowing down the database will force you to buy more hardware for the client that no longer can backup. AIX mirroring is not neccessary when ADSM mirroring is used. To replace a disk, remove the disk from ADSM, remove logical volumes, remove from the volume group. Replace the disk, then do the reverse. The Systems Admin may not understand how this work, you must. To migrate the array, it can be done without an outage if you can "borrow" space from somewhere, then create a third database copy, let them sync, delete the first two copies, then reconfigure the drives, then repeat the process to move back. I have done this lots. Jeff Bach > -Original Message- > From: Miles Purdy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 8:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring > > Hi, my opinions below: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > This depends your current situation. How important is that the TSM > server be available? > Can be it down for a day if two disks fail? I'd say this is one step > better than no mirroring or > protection. FYI: I use RAID 1, but my DB is small relative to yours. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > it be RISKY. > > See above. But basically you would lose everything from the last full > backup. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > No. You can backup the database, shutdown TSM, create the array > (destroying your old LV's) and > restore the database. > > Some questions you might consider: > 1. Can you afford the RAID 5 performance hit? If you make a small > array, ie 5 or 6 disks, > those 18 G disks aren't going to do very well. Are you using SSA? > > Read the Advance Serial RAID Plus Planning Guide. If you have to, > make one array only with your 12 disks. > > 2. RAID 0 for disk pools is much better, from personal experience > RAID 0 does very well here. > It would save you a lot of space, and it is very fast for reads > and writes. Yes, it doesn't have any protection but that's ok. > > 3. It seems odd IMHO that you have an 80GB DB but only 56GB for disk > pools. Are you storing too many versions or files??? > > Miles > > > > -- > - > Miles Purdy > System Manager > Farm Income Programs Directorate > Winnipeg, MB, CA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557 > -- > - > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22-Apr-01 2:53:24 AM >>> > Hi all, > > Environment: > > NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, > > 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) > > My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 > %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). > > Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In > order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted > to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. > > IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for > RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: > > 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy > of DB volumes is required. > > 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would > it > be RISKY. > > 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall > ahead. > > Any comments are welcome! > > Regards > > MAhesh ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **
Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Hi, my opinions below: 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy of DB volumes is required. This depends your current situation. How important is that the TSM server be available? Can be it down for a day if two disks fail? I'd say this is one step better than no mirroring or protection. FYI: I use RAID 1, but my DB is small relative to yours. 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it be RISKY. See above. But basically you would lose everything from the last full backup. 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall ahead. No. You can backup the database, shutdown TSM, create the array (destroying your old LV's) and restore the database. Some questions you might consider: 1. Can you afford the RAID 5 performance hit? If you make a small array, ie 5 or 6 disks, those 18 G disks aren't going to do very well. Are you using SSA? Read the Advance Serial RAID Plus Planning Guide. If you have to, make one array only with your 12 disks. 2. RAID 0 for disk pools is much better, from personal experience RAID 0 does very well here. It would save you a lot of space, and it is very fast for reads and writes. Yes, it doesn't have any protection but that's ok. 3. It seems odd IMHO that you have an 80GB DB but only 56GB for disk pools. Are you storing too many versions or files??? Miles --- Miles Purdy System Manager Farm Income Programs Directorate Winnipeg, MB, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557 --- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22-Apr-01 2:53:24 AM >>> Hi all, Environment: NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy of DB volumes is required. 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it be RISKY. 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall ahead. Any comments are welcome! Regards MAhesh
RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Hi all, Environment: NSM 3466, RS 6000, AIX 4.3.2 , TSM version 3.7.4, 12 x 18.2 GB disk ( for DB and Diskpool Volumes) My current DB is of 80 GB size and is alarmingly utililized ( 95 %).The DB volulmes are mirrored inside TSM ( Second Copy). Therefore another 80 GB space is being used for the second copies. In order to have more usable space for DB, a suggestion has been mooted to go for RAID-5 at the hardware level. IBM's version is that since a second copy MUST be kept , going for RAID 5 shall require more disk space. Now my question is: 1. With the RAID 5 at AIX level, should a second, synchronized copy of DB volumes is required. 2. If I do not keep a second copy and take daily full backup, would it be RISKY. 3. Configuring RAID 5 at this juncture, would anybody see any pitfall ahead. Any comments are welcome! Regards MAhesh
