Mogens:
Just let me disagree with you at only one point. According to my
experience, I think that the size of the disks in an array does matter
sometimes. It's not the same to have 24 9GB disks that to have only 3 of
73GB. You have 24 spindles againts 3, the first option (in a well configured
system of course) will give you better performance in enviroments where you
have a lot of concurrency and many users.
However I think that what I've written above might not be correct (may
be it should be tested) if the 73GB outstands for a long way the 9GB disks
in terms of seek time and transfer rate.
Take a look at an extract of Gaja's paper "Implementing RAID on Oracle":
"5) Procure the smallest drive money can buy, keeping in mind scalability,
limits of the host
machine, the disk array and growth projections for the database. This is a
tough one these
days, with 18 GB drives considered as small drives.
6) Bigger and faster drives are not always better than smaller slower
drives, as the seek times
for larger and faster drives with larger form factors, may be more than
their smaller and
slower counterparts. This is not that big of an issue, if your drives
support a built-in track
buffer cache for storing an entire track's worth of data from read
request(s)."
HTH
Greeting
Diego Cutrone
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:25 PM
> Jon,
>
> It's one of those "how many bags will I need in the supermarket?"
> questions - it depends.
>
> Consider:
>
> - RAID 1+0 is much better than 0+1.
> - Three disks is not much w.r.t. IO capability. If you have three
> concurrent users you'll be OK :)
> - Size doesn't matter (who cares if it's 10, 36 or 73 Gig disks? It's
> the IO capabilitity that counts)
> - I'm new to this list, so I don't know if this will work, but I've
> attached a brilliant presentation by our old friend James Morle (check
> out www.ScaleAbilities.com) regarding SAN, NAS and RAS (Random Acronym
> Seminar).
> - If you're only striping across three disks (is that really a SAN?)
> just SAME (Stripe And Mirror Everything). It might not be good, but it's
> simple.
>
> Jon Behnke wrote:
>
> >We are in the process of setting up a SAN using RAID 0+1 for our
database.
> >In our current environment, we are able to separate our tables, indexes,
> >rollback segments, and archive logs on different disks. On the SAN we
would
> >have six 73 gig disks on RAID 0+1 for a total of about 210 Gig of usable
> >space (3 disks worth of space).
> >
> >Some white papers that I have read suggest attempting to separate the
data,
> >indexes, and rollback segments on separate RAID volumes, and others
simply
> >suggest that the performance boost of striping will supercede the
separation
> >of these items.
> >
> >Can anyone offer any comments or suggestions?
> >
> >Jon Behnke
> >Applications Development Manager
> >Industrial Electric Wire & Cable
> >Phone (262) 957-1147 Fax (262) 957-1647
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Diego Cutrone
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
