=> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:28:20 -0500, Nathan King <nathan.king AT USAA DOT COM> 
said:



> Yikes.. you made your diskpools RAID5 on NT. NT is slow enough without
> having to make it's DISKPOOL RAID5.  I'd go for RAID0 for diskpools and if I
> had the money RAID0+1 for a bit of fault tolerance.

> I suppose that depends upon how critical you view your diskpools. To me the
> diskpool is just a temp. staging area therefore in the event that I lost a
> disk, I'd re-do my diskpool and rerun last night's backup.

I echo 'yikes'; I'd add to this that even if my disk pools weren't short-term
storage, it'd be cheaper and faster to make vigorous use of copy pools, rather
than RAID the storage volumes.


> As far as DB and Logs, I don't think that anyone can afford to be as risky
> as RAID0. However again RAID5 would be my last choice here. I'd rather go
> with a RAID1. [ ... cogent discussions elided ... ]

I differ with you on this because I anticipate that ADSM will perform best if
I give it as much data about my underlying system as possible.  I use ADSM
mirroring instead of any RAIDing, on the presumption that ADSM will do it
better.

Similarly, I try to have my storage volumes reflect something about the
underlying spindles.

Allen S. Rout