dana mn wrote:
> Presuming a DBA is forced to use RAID5, what elements of tuning become
> irrelevant? (in the sense that if you're stuck with RAID5, warts and
> all, then trying to tune X, Y, and Z would be a waste of time /
> ineffective).
>
> Load balancing files would be one thing.. no way to
I would try to benchmark the system to show where the bottleneck(s) is(are).
Probably I/O, possibly the CPU if you are using NT RAID5 instead of a
hardware solution. If your machines aren't real servers, then the disk
controller will slow things down as well, in many PCs there is one
controller f
We get that here -- because the RAID5 volumes are large compared to our
data the database winds up on one or two volumes. The hardware folks are
fixated on throughput rather than multiplexing so I get mostly RAID5
devices. I have to prioritize my file load balancing -- I try to get TEMP
and logf
dana mn wrote:
> Thanks Dave, Don, and Patrice.
>
> It's hardware RAID, a Compaq GS140 machine, and Oracle on VMS [not my
> choice of OS/hardware]. Limited to one large RAID5 volume.
>
> I'd like to make the most of what's there, because for political
> reasons nothing else will change.
>
> Does
Thanks Dave, Don, and Patrice.
It's hardware RAID, a Compaq GS140 machine, and Oracle on VMS [not my
choice of OS/hardware]. Limited to one large RAID5 volume.
I'd like to make the most of what's there, because for political
reasons nothing else will change.
Does it make any sense to increase
s subsidiaries or employees accountable for your
(in)actions based on what's in this email!
> -Original Message-
> From: dana mn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:51
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: Tuning, RAID5, and fr
