We saw this as well. Our normal production db server has the OS
partition running in a RAID1 setup and the DB storage partition running
in RAID5 (all hardware based RAID). If the controller card goes then you
are screwed because it is very difficult to get the RAID containers
built and working on a different card! We are now moving all of the
production DBs to a SAN with redundant cards (and keeping additional
copies of the dbs on other servers).

-steve

ionutz gorea wrote:

>
> Reading all the posts for this topic regarding data security with
> RAID, I can conclude I'm the unluckiest person from this list: on a
> RAID 5 with 3 HDD online and one as a hotspare what do you do when the
> RAID controller stops working?....replace it with a similar one?..not
> possible due to the unique internal checksum......get the data or
> parts of it from the hardisks?...impossible to do that for any type of
> RAID except maybe the mirroring one. And the RAID controller wasn't a
> cheap one. Fortunately for me I had nightly back-ups and I was able to
> restore the data in the previous day state.
> My advice is ALWAYS set up a back-up system on a different machine,
> don't fully trust the RAID.
>
> Ionutz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: svanderclock <svanderclock@...
> <mailto:svanderclock%40yahoo.fr>>
> To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:firebird-support%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, 18 November, 2009 9:44:07 AM
> Subject: [firebird-support] Re: Raid 0 or not ?
>
> > Is RAID0 more prone to crashes than a single disk?
>
> yes, because you have 2 disks, and if only one crash you lost all your
> data ! but in 15 year of computer enginering i never see any disk
> crashed (just encoutered bad sector but never disk that fully crash) !
>
> --- In firebird-support@ yahoogroups. com, Kjell Rilbe <kjell.rilbe@
> ...> wrote:
> >
> > Leyne, Sean wrote:
> >
> > > > For a Database of 20 GB, regarding the speed, is it better to
> use RAID
> > > > 0 or not ? I read that read 0 is twice more faster BUT is it
> true when
> > > > we speak about only one file (the .GDB) ?
> > >
> > > RAID 0 is a little faster than RAID 1 when it comes to read
> performance.
> > >
> > > However, but the reliability/ resiliency which RAID 1 provides
> makes it
> > > "illogical" (read: DO NOT DO IT!!!!) to use RAID 0 for any production
> > > purposes.
> >
> > I wonder, am I missing something? In general you don't hesitate to put
> > single-disk systems in production environments. Is RAID0 more prone to
> > crashes than a single disk? Obviously, the expected MTBF for a set of
> > two disks is shorter than just one of them, but is it really *that*
> much
> > shorter? In other words, if I feel quite at ease with a single disk,
> > should I really worry a lot about a 2-disk RAID0 system?
> >
> > Kjell
> > --
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------
> > Kjell Rilbe
> > DataDIA AB
> > E-post: kjell@...
> > Telefon: 08-761 06 55
> > Mobil: 0733-44 24 64
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
> Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/
> <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Steve Wiser
President
Specialized Business Software
6325 Cochran Road, Unit 1
Solon, OH 44139

www.specializedbusinesssoftware.com
(440) 542-9145 - fax (440) 542-9143




This message and any files transmitted with it may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. They are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, distributing, copying, disclosing, or reliance on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this has reached you in error, kindly destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance.

We attempt to sweep harmful content (e.g. viruses) from e-mail and attachments, however we cannot guarantee their safety and can accept no liability for any resulting damage. The recipient is responsible to verify the safety of this message and any attachments before accepting them.