🚀 go-pugleaf

Please don't use RAID-5 in database applications if high performance is 
one of your objectives. Better use RAID-10 (combination of mirroring and 
striping) at the expense of 50% diskspace for redundancy.

Looking at the number of disks I suppose scsi is the way to go.

Dell makes some pretty decent (and cheap) servers as well.

Frank.

Arl� Mooldijk wrote:
> "Louis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message
> news:3ee728e8$0$49103$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> 
> 
>>We have a IBM RS6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 with 3 CPU's and 9 mirrored
> 
> disks
> 
>>and 1.5 GB internal memory. DBMS Basis 9.1 runs on it. This database can
> 
> be
> 
>>compared with Oracle regarding performance. However it's not
>>multi-threading.
>>
>>We are thinking of upgrading hardware. The F50 cannot handle the job
>>anymore. The Basis DBMS runs on AIX, Linux and SUN. Our database will be
>>around 60 GB and should be spreaded on multiple disks (at least 4). In
> 
> total
> 
>>we need at least 10 disks (20-40 GB). We need 2-4 GB memory.
> 
> 
> Why do you need at least 10 disks? Disks have more storage space these
> days...
> 
> 
>>The solution should be cheap but also reliable. So, we prefer cheap memory
>>and cheap (instead of expensive IBM SSA disks) SCSI or even IDE disks.
> 
> 
> Linux is cheap. If it is a serious server then I'd recommend SCSI with a
> RAID5 controller for the database storage and a mirrored disk for OS. This
> means about 5 disks minimum (3 for RAID5 and 2 for OS). HotSwap if desirable
> (but very nice and handy when you can afford it; saves you downtime when a
> disk fails). HP/Compaq is a good choice for Intel based servers. The support
> of HP is very good (personal experience).
> 
> Just my opinion though...
> 
> With Kind Regards,
> Arl�
> 
>