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                             |\      _,,,---,,_
andyc AT andyc.carenet DOT org            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:andyc AT ANDYC.CARENET DOT ORG]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:03 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> 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                             |\      _,,,---,,_
> 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
> >
>
>
> "WorldSecure Server <baking.bestfoods.com>" 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 <baking.bestfoods.com>" 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.
>
> =======================================================
>