SEO

Please to not post replies with comments on why not or do not suggest why
something is better.

I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.

Thanks.
--

"Burt Peltier" <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<4LbEb.8918$3k6.8407@bignews5.bellsouth.net>. ..
> Please to not post replies with comments on why not or do not suggest why
> something is better.
>
> I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.
>
> Thanks.
> --


Why? I think you already know the answer. There are more than enough
companies who don't involve their DBAs on harwdware purchases, the
hardware is purchased by a bean counter, the SYSTEM comes with RAID-5,
so the answer is obvious.

You also know you shouldn't be using RAID-5 for online redologs.
That simple FACT (which you deliberately want to ignore) WON'T be
refuted by ANY 'informal' (read useless) 'Poll'

If you want to behave like an oystrich, and put your head in the sand,
you don't want to know how many other oystriches there are out there.

Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

> I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.

One word, BAARF.

Battle Against Any Raid Five.

http://www.baarf.com/

Oracle 10g as SAME (stripe & mirror everywhere) standatd RAID 0+1, RAID 10.

RAID5 is only OK for read-only warehouses!

Burt Peltier wrote:
> I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.
>
> Thanks.

We briefly tested RAID 5. Performance for inserts etc was abysmal, to
say the least. We went with RAID 10 and we've been pretty happy with that.

sybrandb@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a1d154f4.0312180238.3854212d@posting.google. com>...
> "Burt Peltier" <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<4LbEb.8918$3k6.8407@bignews5.bellsouth.net>. ..
> > Please to not post replies with comments on why not or do not suggest why
> > something is better.
> >
> > I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> > people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
>
>
> Why? I think you already know the answer. There are more than enough
> companies who don't involve their DBAs on harwdware purchases, the
> hardware is purchased by a bean counter, the SYSTEM comes with RAID-5,
> so the answer is obvious.
>
> You also know you shouldn't be using RAID-5 for online redologs.
> That simple FACT (which you deliberately want to ignore) WON'T be
> refuted by ANY 'informal' (read useless) 'Poll'
>
> If you want to behave like an oystrich, and put your head in the sand,
> you don't want to know how many other oystriches there are out there.
>
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

www.baarf.com

that has alot of information about why RAID 5 is bad. taking random
polls on a newsgroup where anyone can post is the wrong approach. You
can take a look at all the authors on that site and then find out
background information on them(they are all well known). This way you
can test your authors. If I post my opinion, there is no way for you
to really test me is there?

Plus those articles are very well written.

I completely disagree. It's not that he doesn't *want* to know how many
other ostriches are out there- clearly he does, or he wouldn't be asking.
Rather, he doesn't actually *need* to know how many are out there <vbg>.

<sybrandb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1d154f4.0312180238.3854212d@posting.google.c om...
> "Burt Peltier" <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<4LbEb.8918$3k6.8407@bignews5.bellsouth.net>. ..
> > Please to not post replies with comments on why not or do not suggest
why
> > something is better.
> >
> > I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> > people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
>
>
> Why? I think you already know the answer. There are more than enough
> companies who don't involve their DBAs on harwdware purchases, the
> hardware is purchased by a bean counter, the SYSTEM comes with RAID-5,
> so the answer is obvious.
>
> You also know you shouldn't be using RAID-5 for online redologs.
> That simple FACT (which you deliberately want to ignore) WON'T be
> refuted by ANY 'informal' (read useless) 'Poll'
>
> If you want to behave like an oystrich, and put your head in the sand,
> you don't want to know how many other oystriches there are out there.
>
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

"Burt Peltier" <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<4LbEb.8918$3k6.8407@bignews5.bellsouth.net>. ..
> Please to not post replies with comments on why not or do not suggest why
> something is better.
>
> I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.
>
> Thanks.
> --

Hi.

I'd like to troll this newsgroup as to whether I'm better off to
deploy on win32 or lin32. I figure that its likely that lin32 will
provide both better performance and better error
detection/manageability, but I'm lazy. I can click the buttons in OEM
and in W2K, and having to learn all of that command line stuff like
configuring shared memory settings and semaphores seems like a real
pain.

I realize that by being lazy, that I make it easier for this to be
outsourced to a country where folks are more motivated, but the
mangement structure here does not reward pushing leenucks.

So I already know that leenucks would likely provide better
performance, but only if I get really lucky and find the right papers
as to how to configure it properly. I think that a cluebie like myself
is better off with an OS with the hood welded shut. I like to click
the buttons.

As clueless as I am, I still wouldn't use RAID 5.

I AM TROLL, FEED ME.

Pd

Linux, hands-down. Read this:

http://www.interealm.com/technotes/roby/pentmark.html

Also, consider win64:

http://www.oracle.com/ip/index.html?042403_windows.html

Here is what I heard from you: Blah Blah Blah SHOUT Blah Blah CRITICIZE
Blah Blah SHOUT Blah Blah Blah....

--
<sybrandb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1d154f4.0312180238.3854212d@posting.google.c om...
> "Burt Peltier" <burttemp1ReMoVeThIs@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<4LbEb.8918$3k6.8407@bignews5.bellsouth.net>. ..
> > Please to not post replies with comments on why not or do not suggest
why
> > something is better.
> >
> > I am just trying to get a general informal feedback from only
> > people/companies using RAID5 to store ANY Oracle online files.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
>
>
> Why? I think you already know the answer. There are more than enough
> companies who don't involve their DBAs on harwdware purchases, the
> hardware is purchased by a bean counter, the SYSTEM comes with RAID-5,
> so the answer is obvious.
>
> You also know you shouldn't be using RAID-5 for online redologs.
> That simple FACT (which you deliberately want to ignore) WON'T be
> refuted by ANY 'informal' (read useless) 'Poll'
>
> If you want to behave like an oystrich, and put your head in the sand,
> you don't want to know how many other oystriches there are out there.
>
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:53:21 -0600, "Burt Peltier"
<burttemp1ReMoVeThIs@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Here is what I heard from you: Blah Blah Blah SHOUT Blah Blah CRITICIZE
>Blah Blah SHOUT Blah Blah Blah....
>
>--

Guess you need to update your ears


--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA