I agree with your thoughts on performance but not the use of large raid
groups. It would eat into the data spindle count but I think 10 disk RGs
would increase the warm fuzzy feeling. I have pushed single parity RGs
well past the safe point without problems but the guy is antsy about
failures. I have never lost any data in the years I have been taking
care of the filers.
The plan right now is to use what comes with Solaris for filesystem
management. VxVM was thought of for a while.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: slinkymax0r [mailto:slinkywizard@integra.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:06 PM
To: tmac
Cc: Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2; toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: Re: Large Oracle database question
hmmm... with an adequately sized head, his work load shouldn't be a
problem at all.
I would actually anticipate better performance/ recoverability with
large
aggregates of fast spindles, and RAID-DP means very large raid groups :)
Would you be using NFS or block? If block, what file system would you
be
using over the RAID array?
Regards,
Max
Has anyone explained or showed this person a write-up on WAFL and
NetApp's implementation of RAID-4 and now RAID-DP?
...how NetApp's version does not have a "hot" parity disk as all disks
are excersized about the same?
...how RAID-DP is superior to RAID 1+0 and in an edge case is even
better (if you loose the same disk in both plexs of a RAID 1, you have
total data loss...you can loose any two disks with RAID-DP and loose
nothing)
...how RAID-DP has very little overhead compared to NetApp's RAID-4?
...how NetApp's RAID-4 is faster than most hardware RAID arrays?
I could go on, and on, an on....(ask others that know me...plus 10
years at netapp helped)
--
--tmac
RedHat Certified Engineer
On 2/16/07, Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2
michael.miller.ctr@ustranscom.mil wrote:
(This might show up twice)
We are getting ready to stand up a 30+TB GIS app and I was wondering
if
anyone on the list has done something like this on a filer.
The guy who will be running this doesn't think a filer would give him
the
performance required (not specified) and is also concerned that the
parity
drives will get beat to hard.
He has been told by others that the only way to make this work as
needed
is
to use RAID 1+0. This started out being required for all of the data
but
has
been relaxed to just the indexes and current point of interest data.
Any thoughts?
Mike Miller
General Dynamics Information Technology
Michael.Miller.ctr@ustranscom.mil
Michael.Miller@gdit.com
Phone: 618-229-1185
Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2