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                             |\      _,,,---,,_
andyc AT andyc.carenet DOT org            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
>