|
Checksum was dropped when we went from CISC to RISC. Al Al Barsa, Jr. Barsa Consulting Group, LLC 400>390 914-251-1234 914-251-9406 fax http://www.barsaconsulting.com http://www.taatool.com rob@xxxxxxxxx Sent by: midrange-l-bounce To s@xxxxxxxxxxxx Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 04/20/2004 03:07 cc PM Subject RE: Parity Set Configuration Advice Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@midra nge.com> Thank you. Good explanation. Will probably stick with RAID though. I take it checksum was dropped a few versions back, right? Rob Berendt -- Group Dekko Services, LLC Dept 01.073 PO Box 2000 Dock 108 6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com "DeLong, Eric" <EDeLong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 04/20/2004 01:57 PM Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject RE: Parity Set Configuration Advice Rob, I believe there's still potentially a performance advantage with mirroring, since you've essentially doubled the arms available for read IO. I don't know if this still applies with the new controllers, but it's probably negligible in today's systems. I know that in the past, the ideal scenario for mirrored DASD was to have each half of a mirrored pair running on different controllers, in separate cabinets. As I recall, the idea was to protect disk access in the event of power supply problem in one of the two cabinets.... Something like that.... Eric DeLong Sally Beauty Company MIS-Project Manager (BSG) 940-898-7863 or ext. 1863 -----Original Message----- From: rob@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:34 PM To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion Subject: Re: Parity Set Configuration Advice With as many drives as we've replaced, hot, with RAID; I don't see any problems with data integrity. Does anyone, with newer hardware, see a point to mirroring instead of RAID anymore? Rob Berendt -- Group Dekko Services, LLC Dept 01.073 PO Box 2000 Dock 108 6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com "James H H Lampert" <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces+rob=dekko.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx 04/20/2004 12:57 PM Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject Re: Parity Set Configuration Advice > Isn't there downtime associated with mirroring? Meaning can you: > -remove the old drive > - add the new drive > - and get the mirroring restarted > without any downtime? Because with RAID, we can, and have. As I recall, when we lost a mirrored "hat" drive on our 510, we were able to hot-swap in a replacement. But I may have been mistaken. We're more concerned with data integrity than with whether or not we have to re-IPL, and can take some downtime. Now if only the controller permitted parity groups OF mirrored pairs . . . . -- JHHL _______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
