ADSM-L

Re: FAStT700 RAID 0,1,3,5? for DB and Stgpools.

2003-04-16 08:13:58
Subject: Re: FAStT700 RAID 0,1,3,5? for DB and Stgpools.
From: Paul Ripke <stixpjr AT BIGPOND.NET DOT AU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:13:22 +1000
On Wednesday, Apr 16, 2003, at 12:22 Australia/Sydney, Adolph Kahan
wrote:

Paul, I read what you wrote up and that is great, but have you ever
tried defining the stgpools on your disk subsystem as RAID 0 to compare
the difference between RAID 0 and RAID 5. It is just curiosity, since
all of mine have always performed better with RAID 0.

It is not clear to me what model of disk subsystem you were using from
the note.

I haven't tried RAID0 with TSM, as I prefer the redundancy. We've
already
killed half a dozen stgpool volume disks, so RAID5 seems to be a good
choice
thus far. RAID0+1 would be an option, but you lose quite a bit of space.

The disk subsystem is a Sun A5100 fibre attached, with Veritas Volume
Manager doing the RAID5 (and doing it surprisingly well).

From memory, I did toy with a RAID0 and benchmarking with some code I've
got hanging around, and managed around 120 MiB/s. That was split over
two
FC-ALs, as it would saturate one.

Cheers,
--
Paul Ripke
Unix/OpenVMS/TSM/DBA
101 reasons why you can't find your Sysadmin:
68: It's 9AM. He/She is not working that late.
-- Koos van den Hout

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>