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 |\ _,,,---,,_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
>
