Uhmmmm I would "guess" so... I don't run raid configurations but the install
manual (that I wired from) doesn't put any stipulations on the use.
I ran in the "higher availability configuration for years, then with all the
dasd additions I've ended up going back to straight single cards (since I've
only lost 1 card out of 48 (or so) in 5 years... that is just on my tsm
servers, we have tons more ssa disk & controllers, which have seen equally
good results)
Dwight
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
Does that work for Raid? What about fast write? How would the caches
update each other?
Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
St. Louis, Missouri '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Cook, Dwight E wrote:
> Were you using just a single card ?
> Have you ever played with "higher availability" SSA card configurations ?
> Take two cards and set up something like
> Card1-PortA1 -> out to drawer(s)
> Card1-PortA2 <-> Card2-PortA1
> Card2-PortA2 -> out to drawer(s)
>
> then if either card fails, the other still drives the environment.
> you can do the same with the B-Loop
>
> Dwight
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RAID-5 Vs Mirroring
>
>
> 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
> >
>
