May I suggest Halifax, Canada as a great location for this course??? StilL waiting for Oracle OpenWorld to come here, somehow they never do.
: ) Regards, Patrice Boivin Systems Analyst (Oracle Certified DBA) Systems Admin & Operations | Admin. et Exploit. des systèmes Technology Services | Services technologiques Informatics Branch | Direction de l'informatique Maritimes Region, DFO | Région des Maritimes, MPO E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:06 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: DBA Experiences with Oracle and RAID 0+1 you have no idea how badly most of us now want to come to that class. Not that I'd understand most of what was said, but just to listen :) --- Mogens Nørgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jared, > > Good thought! We're running our annual Miracle Master Class (this > year > with Jonathan Lewis) this week and Cary Millsap (and his gang), > Jonathan > and James will arrive tomorrow (Monday), while Steve Adams, Lex de > Haan, > Stephan Haisley and a bunch of other guys will arrive on Tuesday. > I'll > keep this message and throw it up for discussion on the Oak Table > (see > Cary's wonderful article on www.Undskyld.Org)... > > Jared Still wrote: > > >Mogens, > > > >In regard to the number of spindles issue: James Morle has some > >excellent discussion on that in 'Scaling Oracle 8i'. ( I think > it's that > >book ) > > > >When some of the newer larges drives are used in a given > configuration, > >they mabe be able to outperform older drives in a similar > configuration with > >a larger number of spindles. > > > >I say 'older' since smaller drives usually aren't using the latest > technology > >and the newer ones have sufficiently higher throughput to match the > >capability of a larger number of drives in given configuration. > > > >Food for thought, anyway. > > > >Jared > > > > > >On Sunday 20 January 2002 06:50, Mogens Nørgaard wrote: > > > >>Diego, > >> > >>I agree with you 100% and didn't express myself correctly in my > email. > >>The more spindles the better. What I meant to say was that you must > >>never buy disks by taking your total needed amount of space and > divide > >>by the number of big disks you can get hold on :). It's the number > of > >>IO's required by the disk system that matters, not the size... > >> > >>Thanks for making this clear to everyone. > >> > >>Mogens > >> > >>Diego Cutrone wrote: > >> > >>>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] > >>>>> > > > >---------------------------------------- > >Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"; name="Attachment: 1" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Content-Description: > >---------------------------------------- > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Rachel Carmichael 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Boivin, Patrice J 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).
