RAID level

Hi,
I'm building a three node RAC OLTP system, which RAID level is better for performance? Is there any document available?
Thanks,
GK

Depends on your application. If there was always one right answer there would be only one flavor of RAID.
The general rule for Oracle is to do what ASM does: SAME
Stripe And Mirror Everything.
Also check this out: www.baarf.com
Any organization with Juan Loaiza, Cary Millsap, and Mogens Nørgaard as members is worth paying attention to.

Similar Messages

Advice on RAID Sets, Volume Sets, and RAID Levels of the Volume Sets using an Areca Controller

I have read through a lot of information on disk usage, storage rules for an editing rig, users inquiries/member responses in this forum and I thank each and every one of you – especially Harm.
In building my new workstation, I purchased five (5) WD 1T, 7k, 64M SATAIII hard drives and an Areca RAID card, ARC-1880ix-16-4G, which I plan to use primarily as my media/data disk array. The workstation will use a 128GB SATAIII SSD as the OS/program drive and I will transfer two (2) WD Raptor/10k SATA 70GB drives from my current system for pagefile/scratch/render use. I tentatively plan on using a mobo SATAIII port for the SSD and mobo SATA ports with a software RAID (level 0) for the 10k Raptors.
In reading the Areca Instruction manual, I am now considering exactly how I should configure the 5 physical 1TB drives in terms of RAID Level(s), Volume Sets, and RAID Sets. I must admit that I like the opportunity of allowing for a Dedicated Hot Spare as I am generally distrustful of the MTBF data that drive vendors tout and have the bad experience in the past of losing data from a mal-configured RAID array and a single drive hardware failure (admittedly, my fault!).
In line with the logic that one doesn’t want to perform disk reading while trying to write at the same time (or vice-versa), I am thinking the approach above should work OK in using the mobo disk interface and both software and external hardware RAID controllers without having to create separate RAID level configurations within a Volume Set or further dividing up the physical drives into separate RAID sets. I know in forum messages that Harm noted that he had 17 drives and I could envision a benefit to having separate RAID sets in that situation, but I am not at that point yet.
To some degree I think it might be best to just create one RAID Level on one Volume Set on one RAID Set, but want to solicit thoughts from veteran controller users on their workflows/thoughts in these regards.
Anyone care to share thoughts/perspectives? Thanks
Bill

Thanks for the speedy feedback Harm - I appreciate it.
I was thinking RAID level 3 as well.
Of course, it's always something! I purchased the Caviar Blacks by mistake - which are non-TLER. I will work with EggHead to return the ones I purchased and replace them with RE4 versions as I'm not thrilled about the possibility of the controller declaring the volume/disks degraded unnecessarily and although I have the DOS utility WDTLER where one is supposed to be able to enable/disable TLER on WD drives - I suspect WD is way beyond that now anyway with current builds.
I agree with you about just testing the performance of the options for the raptors - on the mobo and then on the controller. When I benchmark them I'll post the results in case others are curious.
Thanks again....off to EggHead!

RAID level for Redo

Hi,
My storage admin created RAID10 and RAID5 for database, I would like to know which RAID Level is best for keeping the REDO logs. Can someone tell me what's best for REDO?
Thanks

hello,
In case of using redo logs then you need performance and availability.that is why i put this comparison for you.
I suggest you use raid 5 because it is faster in the write operations and more recoverable.*
<pre class="jive-pre">Note: RAID 5 disks are primarily used in the processes that require transactions. Relational databases are among the other fields that run very well under a RAID 5 storage scheme*</pre>
RAID 5 vs RAID10
Data Loss and Data Recovery
Let us start off by having RAID 5 explained. In RAID 5, the data backup of any one of the disks is created. If there are 5 disks, in the storage system, then 4 of the disks will be used for storing the data and one of the disks will be used for keeping the backup of any one of the hard disks. If one of the disks in the array fails, then the data can be recovered, but in the event of a second disk failure, the recovery is not possible. RAID 10 on the other hand is a combination of RAID 0 and RAID 1. In a RAID 10 storage scheme, an even number of disks is required. Each disk array has a disk array, which is a mirrored set of the former. In RAID 10, data recovery of all but one disk can be performed. In the case of a disk failure, all the remaining disks can be used effectively without any impact on the storage scheme.
Performance
The RAID 5 performance in the read operations is quite appreciated, though its write operation is quite slow, as compared to RAID 10. RAID 10 is thus used for systems which require high write performance. Hence, it is very obvious, RAID 10 is not used for systems like heavy databases, which require high speed write performance.
Redundancy
The RAID 10 arrays are more data redundant than the RAID 5 arrays. This makes RAID 10 an ideal option for the cases where high data redundancy is required.
Architectural Flexibility
RAID 10 provides more architectural flexibility, as compared to RAID 5. The amount of free space left is also minimized, if you use a RAID 10 data storage scheme.
Controller Requirement
RAID 5 demands a high end card for the data storage performance. If the purpose of the RAID 5 controller is being solved by the operating system, then it will result in the slowing down of the performance of the computer. In case of a RAID 10 controller, any hardware controller can be used.
Applications
RAID 10 finds a wide variety of applications. Systems with RAID 0, RAID 1 or RAID 5 storage schemes are often replaced with a RAID 10 storage scheme. They are mainly used for medium sized databases. RAID 5 disks are primarily used in the processes that require transactions. Relational databases are among the other fields that run very well under a RAID 5 storage scheme.
With this, I complete the RAID 5 vs RAID 10 comparison. This comparison, I hope, will help you in deciding the right storage scheme, that can suit your purpose.
kind regards
Mohamed

Raid Level 5+6 under 10.5.6 ?

we couldn't use our SCSI RAID Level 6 under 10.52/10.53/10.54/10.5/5
heavy CPU load after a while and crash of the AFP
now the RAID is for sale !
Murphy's low, seems that Apple has fixed some kinds of problems with RAID
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3192
any body has already Experience with the 10.5.6 and the use of RAID Level 5 or Level 6 on a Server?
any information would help
thanks

No version of Mac OS X supports RAID5 or 6. Theses RAID levels are always implemented in hardware and therefore not subject to the whims of the OS. In reality the RAID is shrouded by the controller and OS has no idea of the underlying array format and there there is nothing to fix in the OS.
I think the pertinent part of your post, though is the 'SCSI' element. I expect that ant problems you have relate to the SCSI card you're using and not the OS. Since there are no specific SCSI fixes in 10.5.6 I doubt anything has changed (but Apple are notorious for not detailing all the low-level changes they make, so you might be lucky.
You'd have a better chance, though, of looking at the SCSI card you're using (what make/model is it?) and checking the drivers provided by the vendor. Most SCSI problems in my experience have come down to card and drivers, not necessarily the OS.

The best RAID level for video editing that has some form of redundancy?

I've been asked to help find the best solution for importing and editing large amounts of HDV (25 Mbit/s) video. However, those whom I am helping also want a level of redundancy that will allow a single drive to fail and their data to be preserved. So what I'm trying to figure out is the best RAID level (or levels) for their need. I'm fairly certain that either 0+1 or 10 is what I'm looking for, however the I/O performance differences between 0+1 and 10 aren't quite clear to me. If someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it. Additionally, if someone knows a better level than either 0+1 or 10 for the needs I described, please don't hesitate to let me know.

The difference between RAID 10 and RAID 0+1 is how the array is created.
RAID 0+1 creates a RAID from multiple RAID 0 arrays that are mirrored.
You can tolerate any number of drive failures in any one side of the mirror (that side of the mirror goes offline as soon as any one disk fails, so it doesn't matter how many other disks fail in the same array), but one drive failure on both parts of the mirror will trash your data.
RAID 10 creates a stripe of multiple RAID 1 mirrors.
In this setup you create RAID 1 mirror sets and stripe them together.
In this setup you can tolerate one disk failure in each element of the stripe.
For example if you have 6 drives you might create three mirrors of two drives each, and each mirror is then striped.
You can lose one drive in each mirror, but if you lose two drives in any mirror set, you're out of luck.
In both cases, though, you're not going to get the best usage out of the array since mirroring has a 50% overhead - meaning you're only going to get 50% of your total disk capacity as usable space.
With the XServe RAID, the RAID 5 performance is very good - good enough for your 25MB/sec throughput so I'd go with RAID 5 arrays, not RAID 0 or 1 on the XServe RAID itself.
Then, depending on your space requirements, you can either stripe or mirror them together for a RAID 50 or 51 array. In this way you gain the data redundancy of RAID 5 with better disk utilization than 10 or 0+1.
RAID 50 will give you the best performance (and the most usable space), RAID 51 will give you the best redundancy.
At the end of the day it's up to you to decide which format to use based on performance and usable space requirements.

ASM Disk Group RAID Levels

This is the scenario that I am currently working on. Just need some input on whether it is feasible or not.
We have a 2 node RAC running Oracle 10.2.0.3 on AIX 5L. Database size is ~2TB. The database mostly performs OLTP but also stores some historical data.
There are two main applications using the database - one performs high reads with some small updates & inserts, while the other is very write intensive but does some reads as well.
Currently there are three disk groups one for the tablespaces (dg_data), another for system/sysaux/undo tablespaces (dg_system) and another for archived logs & redo log copies (dg_flash) - all using external redundancy. ASM best practises recommend no more than 2 disk groups. It also recommends disk groups with disks of similar characteristics including raid levels. However, the dg_data disk group has both RAID 5 and RAID 1+0 disks which house tablespaces for both applications. Seeing that the applications have different requirements (heavy reads vs heavy writes) does it make sense to create a separate disk group with 2 different RAID levels or would using RAID 5 in dg_data satisfy both requirements?

I am attempting to generate some statistics on the ASM Disks I/O activity before implementing the disk group separation in order have some metrics for comparison purposes. Enterprise Manager Grid Control displays the performance of disk groups and individual disks by showing the Disk Group I/O Cumulative Statistics. When comparing the results with the asmiostat output I am unable to correlate the results. I know that the asmiostat queries the v$asm_disk_stat view. Where does EM GC pull it's information from?
For example, I run the following query on the ASM instance:
SQL> select group_number,disk_number,total_mb,free_mb,name,path,reads,writes,read_time,write_time,bytes_read,bytes_written
2 from v$asm_disk_stat
3 where group_number=
4 (select group_number from v$asm_diskgroup
5* where name = 'DG_FLASH')
GROUP_NUMBER DISK_NUMBER TOTAL_MB FREE_MB NAME PATH READS WRITES READ_TIME WRITE_TIME BYTES_READ BYTES_WRITTEN
1 0 8671 8432 DG_FLASH_0000 /dev/asm2 14379476 10338479 149205.75 19633.64 290,136,450,560.00 7.2165E+10
1 1 8671 8431 DG_FLASH_0001 /dev/asm3 11470508 10278698 184597.5 19313.54 249,769,027,584.00 9.2911E+10
1 2 8671 8432 DG_FLASH_0002 /dev/asm4 17274529 8743188 178547.56 38342.52 339,439,240,192.00 6.7165E+10
The output from the same period on Grid Control is below
MEMBER DISKS AVG RESPTIME AVG THROUGHPUT TOT I/O TOT RDS TOT WRTS RDERRS WRTERRS
DG_FLASH_0000 5.58 2.58 33179503 21949607 11,229,896 0 0
DG_FLASH_0001 8.26 1.83 25752100 13131695 12,620,405 0 0
DG_FLASH_0002 8.11 1.86 28269693 18798823 9,470,870 0 0
The statistics in the query are lower than those in the EM GC report. I also tried querying the fixed views (x$) but the results were even more confusing.
What is the best method for comparing and gathering statistics on ASM activity?

Raid levels for sql server files

Hi,
I have a doubt on raid levels.
What RAID level should be used for SQL Data files and why?
What RAID level should be used for SQL LOG files and why?
What RAID level should be used for Tempdb files and why?
Thank you.

SQL Log File - The I/O is sequential in nature but only if you have a single database on the raid group of disks. If you have 2 or more database each doing its sequential pattern, you result having random I/O on the raid group.
SQL Data files - yes they are random in nature and could be write intensive but consider that SQL Server writes synchronously only in the log file, the writes on the data files are made in background by lazy writer and check point so it is not mandatory
to have RAID10, I will always choose RAID 5. The write penality of the RAID5 does not affect performances.
One last consideration: modern storage do "wide striping" i.e. they spread I/O operation on a pool of raid group. Every read/write operation first hit the cache of the storage (battery protected RAM) if the cache has not the blocks needed by the
rad operation or has not the amount of space to satisfy the write operation, the I/O is demanded to the disks...
Work with your storage admin if you have one and ask him to do cache partitioning and reserve some only for SQL Server log, you will be amazed by the gain in performances...

RAID level, ASM

Hi all,
from performance perspective: Which RAID levels are recommended to store OCR/Voting disks , Redo logs, Control files, datafiles in an 11gR2 RAC using ASM?
- OCR/Voting disks with NORNAL redundancy ASM level.
- Redo logs, Control files, datafiles, temp files EXTERNAL redundancy ASM level.
(we will use Redhat Enterprise Linux 5.5)
Thank you,
Diego

Diego wrote:
from performance perspective: Which RAID levels are recommended to store OCR/Voting disks , Redo logs, Control files, datafiles in an 11gR2 RAC using ASM?A 2-way mirror with a quorum disk is needed for the OCR and voting disk. This mean at minimum 3 disks.
For the database - that depends entirely on what redundancy you need for the database layer.
ASM automatically stripes across the disks for a diskgroup. You can then choose to mirror that in addition. Or you can use external mirroring (on the storage server/SAN). Or you can use RAID10 on the SAN and then use single stiped and mirrored LUNs per diskgroup. Or you can use multiple such LUNs per diskgroup, which means ASM will stripe the striped set. Not a real issue and covered in an Oracle support note.
As ASM does not support RAID5/6/7, you can use that on the physical storage layer and then simply stripe in ASM.
Or you can use 2 storage servers and use ASM to stripe the disks (in a diskgroup) per server. Then mirror these across storage server boundaries, thus introducing redundancy at physical storage server layer.
Lots of possibilities and combinations. The best being whatever meets your requirements the best.
Also keep in mind that the fabric layer also need to be redundant. No use of having 2 storage servers for example and mirroring across these for redundancy, when connectivity to the storage servers are via a single non-redundant fabric layer switch. Or wiring a dual port HBA/HCA into the same switch (cable failure covered, but loose the switch and loose all connectivity to the fabric layer),

RAID Level Configuration Best Practices

Hi Guys ,
We are building new Virtual environment for SQL Server and have to define RAID level configuration for SQL Server setup.
Please share your thoughts for RAID configuration for SQL data, log , temppdb, Backup files .
Files RAID Level
SQL Data File -->
SQL Log Files-->
Tempdb Data-->
Tempdb log-->
Backup files--> .
Any other configuration best practices are more then welcome .
Like Memory Setting at OS level , LUN Settings.
Best practices to configure SQL Server in Hyper-V with clustering.
Thank you
Please Mark As Answer if it is helpful. \\Aim To Inspire Rather to Teach A.Shah

Hi,
If you can shed some bucks you should go for RAID 10 for all files. Also as a best practice keeping database log and data files on different physical drive would give optimum performance. Tempdb can be placed with data file or on a different drive as per
usage. Its always good to use dedicated drive for tempdb
For memory setting.Please refer
This link for setting max server memory
You should monitor SQL server memory usage using below counters taken from
this Link
SQLServer:Buffer Manager--Buffer Cache hit ratio(BCHR): IIf your BCHR is high 90 to 100 Then it points to fact that You don't have memory pressure. Keep in mind that suppose somebody runs a query which request large amount of pages in that
case momentarily BCHR might come down to 60 or 70 may be less but that does not means it is a memory pressure it means your query requires large memory and will take it. After that query completes you will see BCHR risiing again
SQLServer:Buffer Manager--Page Life Expectancy(PLE): PLE shows for how long page remain in buffer pool. The longer it stays the better it is. Its common misconception to take 300 as a baseline for PLE. But it is not,I read it from
Jonathan Kehayias book( troubleshooting SQL Server) that this value was baseline when SQL Server was of 2000 version and max RAM one could see was from 4-6 G. Now with 200G or RAM coming into picture this value is not correct. He also gave the formula( tentative)
how to calculate it. Take the base counter value of 300 presented by most resources, and then determine a multiple of this value based on the configured buffer cache size, which is the 'max server memory' sp_ configure option in SQL Server, divided by 4 GB.
So, for a server with 32 GB allocated to the buffer pool, the PLE value should be at least (32/4)*300 = 2400. So far this has done good to me so I would recommend you to use it.
SQLServer:Buffer Manager--CheckpointPages/sec: Checkpoint pages /sec counter is important to know about memory pressure because if buffer cache is low then lots of new pages needs to be brought into and flushed out from buffer pool,
due to load checkpoint's work will increase and will start flushing out dirty pages very frequently. If this counter is high then your SQL Server buffer pool is not able to cope up with requests coming and we need to increase it by increasing buffer pool memory
or by increasing physical RAM and then making adequate changes in Buffer pool size. Technically this value should be low if you are looking at line graph in perfmon this value should always touch base for stable system.
SQLServer:Buffer Manager--Freepages: This value should not be less you always want to see high value for it.
SQLServer:Memory Manager--Memory Grants Pending: If you see memory grants pending in buffer pool your server is facing SQL Server memory crunch and increasing memory would be a good idea. For memory grants please read this article:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlqueryprocessing/archive/2010/02/16/understanding-sql-server-memory-grant.aspx
SQLServer:memory Manager--Target Server Memory: This is amount of memory SQL Server is trying to acquire.
SQLServer:memory Manager--Total Server memory This is current memory SQL Server has acquired.
For other settings I would like you to discuss with vendor. Storage questions IMO should be directed to Vendor.
Below would surely be a good read
SAN storage best practice For SQL Server
SQLCAT best practice for SQL Server storage
Please mark this reply as answer if it solved your issue or vote as helpful if it helped so that other forum members can benefit from it.
My TechNet Wiki Articles

RAID Levels for SAP BW

I need to know if different raid levels are recommended for SAP BW than for other SAP applications such as R/3. We are having load performance issues and RAID is one area we are looking at as a potential improvement area.

Hi Jeff,
due to the fact, that SAP has included BI (BW) into NetWeaver, there could no different recommendations for BI and ERP (R/3). I would recommend, that you first should try to find out if you really have an I/O problem.
If you want to find out if you have I/O problems, use TA ST04->"detail analysis" to get the I/O times of the database. On an Oracle system you can get the I/O times on volume level down to the data file level. You'll find the I/O times in milli seconds. You should check if your I/O times are more or less the same on all of your volumes. If not may be you should move some files to disks with lower I/O times.
Normally I/O times should below 10 ms. I/O performance is not good or bad, only you can decide if the performance is good enough or not. As a rule of thumb I would say, that the performance is the better, the more disks you are using. But on current I/O subsystems you have plenty of parameters to vary. Number of disks, stripe size, striping on OS or subsystem level, RAID level, cache size and file system parameters (logging, buffering ...).
As a hint, we run systems on different I/O subsystems and we have I/O times between 12 ms down to 0.8 ms. Needless to say, that the costs of the different systems varies a lot. The 0.8 ms could not be achieved by using only disks, you can only achieve it be using huge caches independent of the RAID level. RAID 10 (1+0) is probably better if you have a lot of random I/O, from a price performance perspective RAID 5 could be better because you have more active disks (more disk space) for the same amount of money.
The bottom line is, you have to decide yourself if your I/O is good enough.

Hitachi Array Configuration (Cache - RAID levels ? on Oracle9i/Solaris9)

I shall install Oracle9i Release2 on a Sun Enterprise 4500 with 12 processors using a Hitachi 9200 array with a two-controller, 512M each, and 10 73GB drives). IT recommended and decided no fail-over and/or clustering.
1) Does anyone have any previous experience in configuring the cache arrays with specific recommendations. We plan to set the redo logs on that cache as a leading-edge mechanism from that vendor. Are there any known drawbacks.
2) Hitachi suggests that their technology is fast enough to handle RAID 5. What RAID levels do you recommend for permanent, in particular for indexes, and also for temporary datafiles? Oracle listed recommendations have been RAID 0+1 on datafiles; and RAID 1 on redo log files, and archivelog files.
3) Has anyone implemented successfuly RAID 5 on Hitachi before ? The database server will primarily be an MTS with some hybrid EIS features for primarily overnight processing and two consumer groups are associated.

Great work vango44!
Here are some RAID performance statistics I gathered while testing RAID on my system. The testing software was Winbench 99. The hard drives tested were new Seagate ST380013AS drives, formatted NTFS. Winbench was running on a third drive that is not included in the tests and should not affect the results.
The drives were reformatted between tests and chkdsk'ed to try and keep things "apples to apples".
No hardware or software changes other than the RAID setup/connections were made between tests.
Higher numbers mean better performance.
I also ran the same tests on the newish WD Raptor 10K drives:
I couldn't stand all the noise the Raptors made, so I returned them.
On my motherboard:
SATA 1 & 2 = Intel RAID controller
SATA 3 & 4 = Promise RAID controller
If the test title does not include "RAID", then it was a single drive test.
Unfortunately, I don't have a spreadsheet version of the above stats. Otherwise I'd create nice bar charts for us and it's would be easier to deduce performance.
Perhaps some kind reader will OCR the pictures, put them into Excel, and make some nice bar charts for us?
Hope the info helps.

Pegasus R4: RAID level and Time Machine setup?

We're a small architectural firm looking at getting a Pegasus R4 RAID + Mac Mini Server. Our current data use is 540 GB, which add about 10 GB/year to. We currently use Time Machine for local server backup and Crashplan for offsite backup.
What RAID level do you recommend? And what if we wanted to use Time Machine as well?

What RAID level do you recommend?
The choice of RAID format depends on many factors that likely can't be answered directly - there are too many variables based on your own usage and expectations.
If you're looking to use it for backups then you probably want some kind of protected storage, which likely means either RAID 5 or RAID 10. Of the two, RAID 10 will have better throughput, but RAID 5 will give you more usable capactiy (about 2.7TB vs. ≈ 2TB).
Since your primary goal isn't likely to be speed (you'll be throttled by the network bandwidth), I'd be inclined to go with the RAID 5, but there are other considerations, especially if your data usage is highly dynamic (which causes Time Machine backups to take up more space since it saves more revisions of various files).

Changing BTRFS RAID level

Linux 3.3 was supposed to have introduced support for re-striping between raid levels. Does anyone know how to go about doing so or know any good tutorials/documentation?
I'm thinking of getting a second drive, formatting it with btrfs, copying over my existing drive, and then adding the old drive and converting it to RAID1. If I can figure out how that is.

I am running a similar setup to your description. Yes, syslinux has a difficult time booting a raid1 btrfs array (it may be possible though?). I wound up giving up on syslinux and just using grub.
I left a small partition ext3 partition for grub on both my drives. grub-install <disk> works flawlessly this way. Technically, I dont think you need a dedicated /boot with grub now (as it now has full btrfs support?)
for both disks gdisk -l looks the same:
Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name
1 2048 6143 2.0 MiB EF02 BIOS boot partition
2 6144 1953523021 931.5 GiB 8300 Linux filesystem
I then created my btrfs raid1 array:
mkfs.btrfs -L TANK -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2
grub-install went smoothly.
grub-install /dev/sda
grub-install /dev/sdb
grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
MAKE sure you add the "btrfs" hook mkinitcpio to mkinitcpio.conf hooks array and regen your initramfs-linux.img. Somehow I forget to do this sometimes...
The resulting setup can be booted even if one drive fails (in degraded mode atleast). If a drive were to fail, its a little bit of a pain to setup the partitions on the failed drive replacement, add the device to the degraded btrfs, and install grub to it... but hey. Its relatively bullet proof: even more so with weekly snapshots and backups to a non-btrfs device.
Anyway I am really enjoying the btrfs features! good luck with the install.
Last edited by cteampride (2012-05-20 01:10:35)

StorEdge A1000 Raid Level Question

I'm a bit confused with what RAID levels the A1000 supports. On:
http://www.sun.com/storage/workgroup/a1000/specs.html
It says that it supporst 1+0. In the raidutil manpage it say 1 is
equivalent to 0+1 and there is no mention of 1+0. So what gives?
I used raid manager 6.22.
Thanks!

What raid level the model supports has to be checked specific to its specification.
raid level.
o --> sriping
1---> mirroring
2-->emc (emming code conversion)
3---> srtiping with parity
4---> writing entire datablock to the disk with parity
5--->striping the data with two independent parity
6---> striping the data with 2 distributed parity

Which one raid level is better

Hi:
We have an 3310 raid configured like raid1 with one logical drive,
with 10 disks (5 mirror) and 2 for spare.
In last 6 months we had 5 fatal fails, first time we changed the controller,
second time, we changed the chassis, however it did not fix the problem.
Data was lost in each fatal fail.
is it normal?
maybe, another raid level will fix our problem?
Our system is redundant, has 5 servers-prime and 5 servers-backup
When one prime fails, the backup takes the control.
Only, raid 3310 is not redundant.
Which one will be an better configuration?
is it possible to have 3310 redundant?
thanks

Hi cmadero33
Did the Sun engineers upgrade the firmware on the 3310 when they replaced all the disk's and controllers for you ?
I'm assuming this array is in a data-center/server room with good cooling etc (ie it's not cooking itself)
David

RAID level

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for