Re: A DBA philosopical question

> >>>If RAID 5 is all that bad, why is it so widely used and supported?
> >>
> >>If windows is all bad, why is it so widely used and supported?
> >>
> > I didn't know Windows was possibly considered all bad.
>
> As a server platform or for home use to play games and surf the web.
> This is c.d.o.oracle.
>

It doesn't matter what this group is. That was an analogy. Even just for
Oracle database servers, it is hard to believe Windows has no advantages.

> >>RAID 5 is not bad just as fire is not bad ... when used appropriate.
> >>
> > That can be said just about any RAID.
>
> No it can't.
>

So you are saying other RAIDs don't have to be used appropriately?

> >>Except with Apple's Xserve RAID units with their dual XOR engines ...
> >
> > I have used it on HP, Dell, EMC and even old IBM hardware. They all work
> > great.
>
> Hardly. You just didn't put in the work necessary, testing different
> configurations, to see how much better thru-put you could have had.
>

I have done so. Shall I only consider maximum write performance without
thinking about cost for all databases?

> >>RAID5 dose not belong under an Oracle database.
> >
> > Now, that just sounds absurd.
>
> Tell that to Oracle. Tell that to the people in my lab whose testing has
> repeatedly demonstrated this to be fact.
>

Demostrating what? Write performance outweights cost in every Oracle
implementation?

> >>Why is it used so often
> >>then? Because most UNIX system admins. don't ask their counterpart DBAs
> >>what to do ... they just give them disk and say "make due with it."
> >>--
> >
> > You mean most sys admins automatically use RAID 5 without consulting
DBAs? I
> > guess you have a reason for that too.
>
> Because they don't give a damn.
>
> Sorry to be harsh but it is reality. At one very large telecom where
> I've consulted three different times for a period of several years there
> is a department that provides SA support. They give the DBA a box:
> Preconfigured: and say "use it." This is not unusual in large
organizations.
> --

I have no doubt you have those experiences, but I find it hard to accept
that kind of generalization about SAs, or RAID 5 for that matter.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
    ... support, 64-bit GUI support, ... Windows was anathema, all these Mac users wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, then suddenly Apple supports it, and these same people are booting into it, or running Parallels and calling it a feature now. ... The new Mac Pro has an optional hardware RAID adapter that does finally support raid 5, but it's an extra 1000 bucks to play along. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: HELP!!! MY SERVER IS HOSED!!!
    ... Program you can reveive FREE Business Critical Support from MS. ... production server down causing a work stoppage. ... probably was an RAID Controller upgrade. ... cannot get Windows to load at all. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: I wasted $79.00 on SUSE 9.0
    ... > I have a P4P800 and SATA and RAID are two different issues. ... > Why would anyone running Windows want to use kword? ... No support. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Raid 5
    ... | Windows ME and Windows NT 4.0 workstation, this is "over-kill." ... RAID 5 is solely based on the hardware. ... | RAID controller has RAID 5 support and the correct corresponding Windows XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Selbstbau-NAS - bitte um Empfehlungen oder Kritik
    ... Windows dank Hyperthreading 4 Kerne), ... Leider wurde er bzw. die Platten ... durchprobiert, weder im SATA, noch RAID oder AHCI Modus wollten ... Hab eine 160 GB Platte am internen SATA POrt für die BS Installation ...
    (de.comp.hardware.laufwerke.festplatten)