On 01/21/2004 03:04:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GB. My question is, can a RAID 5 volume be defragmented? Is it sane,
technically? The volume is 130GB in size...
You are defragmenting a file system, not a volume. Block based file
systems cannot be defragmented, only extent-based file
Hi Rhojel
Tjeck out: http://www.baarf.com/
Rgds, Frank
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:04
AM
Subject: Defragmenting a RAID 5
volume?
Hello people,
We recently
Hello people,
We recently experienced a hang in our database server, WIN2k Advanced server with raid 5 for Oracle 817 database files.
Examining the perf logs showed that Event 2022 caused the hang:
Event ID: 2022
Source: Srv
Description: Server was unable to find a free connection 144
Title: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Mladen,
I'll send you some developers that will code some JAVA stuff that will pegg all your CPUs.
Raj
-Original Message-
From: Mladen Gogala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:59 AM
To: Multiple recipien
many many storage arrays have limitations on the number
of RAID groups/volumes you can create, so you could easily be shooting
yourself in the foot for the future by creating, say, 50 RAID-1 volumes when
there's a limit of 64 raid groups on the array.
As far as RAID-5, I give all due respect an
Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the
scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid
groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM.
RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your
easily be shooting
yourself in the foot for the future by creating, say, 50 RAID-1 volumes
when
there's a limit of 64 raid groups on the array.
As far as RAID-5, I give all due respect and tithe to our BAARF leaders
(the
check's in the mail), but you might actually be able to do RAID-5.
Is this perhaps a T-3 Disk Storage Array?
-Original Message-
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: 8/12/2003 2:24 PM
Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid
10.
Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one
is best? This is Oracle
USA
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
>
>
>
>
> The _only_ even theoretical advantage
avoid mgmt saying 'is it installed yet?'
Niall
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
> Sent: 14 August 2003 14:59
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for ta
Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays,
should any of those be considered a single-point-of-failure...
The combination of HW RAID-1 and SW RAID-0 is optimal for performance, if
the HW supports it...
on 8/12/03 9:04 PM, Matthew Zito at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
t
--Matthew ZitoGridApp SystemsEmail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cell: 646-220-3551Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359http://www.gridapp.com
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:
Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:03 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject
le recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is that software
RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility than the hardware ones.
For examp
gt; Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
>
>
>
>
> The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is
> that software
> RAID implementations tend to have more flexib
Our hardware people tell me that our disk array will not support Raid 10.
Given a choice between Raid 1 or 5 for my tablespaces, which one
is best? This is Oracle 8.1.7 on AIX 4.3.3. The application will
have a mix of read and write activity.
Thanks,
Peter Schauss
--
Please see the official O
Tim,
Are you suggesting that HW RAID 1 with SW RAID 0 is a better
combination than HW RAID 1 and HW RAID 0?
If so, why?
Jared
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 21:59, Tim Gorman wrote:
> Software RAID-1 can mirror across controllers, channels, and storage arrays,
> should any of those be considered a sing
Actually, as of AIX 4.3.3, it does support 0+1 for LVs, but that wasn't the
scenario I was imagining. I was envisioning creating a set of RAID-1 raid
groups on the storage array and then striping across them using the LVM.
RAID-1 is one of those things that I feel is generally better to let your
Title: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Ask the BAARF committee NO RAID 5(or four or free ;o)
-Original Message-
From: Schauss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:24 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for
The AIX LVM supports RAID-0 and RAID-1, but not together, as you state.
However, a rude form of RAID-0 can be achieved by specifying "max allocation
policy", which will cause round-robin distribution of physical extents (PEs)
across a list of physical volumes (PVs), thereby approximately RAID-0 at
Title: Message
The
correct statement is "no RAID-5". I believe that RAID 1+0 (mirrorin', strippin'
and slidin') is OK.
--Mladen GogalaOracle DBA
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Stefick Ron
hardware RAID, and most of those allow you to do it online. Some of the
better software RAID implementations even allow for online volume type
conversion - from RAID-1 to RAID-5 when adding a third disk to a mirrored
pair, as a random example.
Beyond that, there's no reason to have software
ednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
>
>
>
>
> The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is
> that software
> RAID implementations tend to have more flexibility t
]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/13/2003 05:14 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
Yes and no - its a semantical issue. If you wa
hew Zito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Raid 1 vs Raid 5 for tablespaces
>
>
>
>
> The _only_ even theoretical advantage to software RAID-0 is
> that software
> RAID
Will "sys" Component of CPU Utilization be Higher on a RAID 5 Volume Versus a RAID
1+0/0+1 Volume on a Database Server ?
Under peak Hybrid Loads the CPU Utilization's "sys" component is 50 % & "usr"
component is 50 % .
Our Hybrid Application DAT
Will "sys" Component of CPU Utilization be Higher on a RAID 5 Volume Versus a RAID
1+0/0+1 Volume on a Database Server ?
Under peak Hybrid Loads the CPU Utilization's "sys" component is 50 % & "usr"
component is 50 % .
Our Hybrid Application DAT
M
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: ORA-19502 ON RAID 5 DISKS WITH ENOUGH FREE
SPACE
>
>
> Yechiel,
>
> No OS errors here. You may want to look at
502 ON RAID 5 DISKS WITH ENOUGH FREE SPACE
Yechiel,
No OS errors here. You may want to look at the
LGWR trace file in the BDUMP directory.
2 things
1) Have the SA check for device errors. Something in the IO
system is not working.
2) Open a TAR.
If you have another location to redirect arch l
Thanks Jared.
I forgot to mention that the SA checked for device errors. None found.
A tar has been opened is already on it's way to higher support level.
This problem occurred again today, third time in two weeks.
Also, the database is up, only the ARCH process is dead.
I started the ARCH (arc
Yechiel,
What about those alert log entries?
Jared
"Yechiel Adar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/05/2002 10:38 AM
To: "ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: ORA-
, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: ORA-19502 ON RAID 5 DISKS WITH ENOUGH FREE SPACE
Here is parts of the alert log:
Current log# 6 seq# 4153 mem# 0:
D:\ORACLE\ORADATA\MUSK135\DATABASE\LOGM1356.ORA
Sun Nov 03 11:03:34 2002
ARC0: Beginning to archive log# 5 seq# 4152
ARC0
"Yechiel Adar"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Multiple
recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> .il> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: ORA-19502
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 11/05/2002 10:38 AM
>
>
> To: "ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: ORA-19502 ON RAID 5 DISKS WITH ENOUGH FREE
SPACE
>
>
>
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: ORA-19502 ON RAID 5 DISKS WITH ENOUGH FREE SPACE
Hello All
Oracle 8.1.6.3.4 on NT.
I got ora-19502 - can not write archive log, and users could not logged
on.
I can logon only as internal.
We had the same problem a few days ago.
The te
Hello All
Oracle 8.1.6.3.4 on NT.
I got ora-19502 - can not write archive log, and users could not logged on.
I can logon only as internal.
We had the same problem a few days ago.
The technical support people checked the raid 5 disks and did not find any
I/O errors.
There is a lot of free space
nto RAID 1 disks, I _can_ live with a
combination of RAID 1 and RAID 5 on a wellconfigured SAN. I have been
successful with a few clients with this method when Cost has been a factor
as far as disks/space go. I had to argue for this, but the client was able
to see benefits that I was able to promise.
Title: RE: Re Raid 5+
Jared
raid 5 is good over a single disk for the read speed and the fact
you can rebuild if a disk is lost. A raid 5 write includes the
additional overhead of calculating parity, no question about it.
My raid 1+0 spindles are faster than my raid 5 when it comes to
>> I cannot fathom Raid 5 being faster than Raid 1 for writes.
>Well in sequential writes like redo log, copy redo log to archive log and
many other cases raid 5 will be faster.
Care to explain how RAID5 will be faster for a redo log write, because I
don't have that understand
bosom.
Seriously: (and this is also a reply to Jared as
well) The mail I answered to started with:
> I cannot fathom Raid 5 being faster than Raid 1
for writes.
Well in sequential writes like redo log, copy redo log
to archive log and many other cases raid 5 will be
faster.
Yechiel A
Yechial,
> You have 12 disks. In raid 0+1 you use striping across 6 volumes.
> In raid 5 you strip across 11 disks, so you get almost double the work
They didn't tell you everything they know about RAID 0+1.
The disks may be striped into 6 logical disks, and they are
written to a
rent users?
- Original Message -
From:
Yechiel
Adar
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 9:03
AM
Subject: Re: Re Raid 5+
Hello Ian
I heard a lecture on raid 5 disks a few weeks
ago.
The rational behind read 5 being faster the
Hello Ian
I heard a lecture on raid 5 disks a few weeks
ago.
The rational behind read 5 being faster then raid 0+1 is
this:
You have 12 disks. In raid 0+1 you use striping across 6
volumes.
In raid 5 you strip across 11 disks, so you get almost
double the work without returning and moving
I worked on a system that was being developed on Raid-5. We didn't
experience any I/O performance issues until I converted the singleton
inserts/updates to array inserts/updates. Then we bottlenecked on the redo
logs. We moved those off to a Raid 0+1 and the I/O bottleneck went away. At
I have never been given a choice to use anything other than RAID 5. The
storage management group dictates what we get and the Server admin group and
DBA's have to live with it. (Large IT shop everything in its own silo).
Though it has not been the end of the world being on RAID 5, but t
logs onto a RAID 5 array just for grins (while
doing some preproduction testing before going live with a new
database). The sysadmin and I saw a huge increase in disk activity,
but that increase didn't translate into a negative impact on
application performance. Who cares whether the poor disks
I
cannot fathom Raid 5 being faster than Raid 1 tor writes. The real
question is, is it fast enough for your users. We happen to have a 650
terabyte database here. Even using Raid 5 disk storage would be
prohibitedly expensive. So we use a home-built hierarchal storage system
and store
er 31, 2002 2:34 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re Raid 5+
Jared,
We are certainly going to be performing extensive
testing to ensure performance of our applications under Raid5+ is acceptable.
That means it is as good if not better than that
experienced under Raid1
Jared,
We are certainly going to be performing extensive testing to
ensure performance of our applications under Raid5+ is acceptable.
That means it is as good if not better than that experienced
under Raid1
As I see it Oracle gain no benefit
for stating that Raid5 should be use
John,
Are they going to loan you a system that can be
configured as both RAID 5 and 1, so that you can
do your own tests?
Seems a reasonable thing to do, or for them to let
you setup tests in their lab.
Jared
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 07:34, John Hallas wrote:
> Russ,
>
> I am
Russ,
I am currently working for a large company who are moving
from EMC disk array to HP XP512 arrays (these are actually HDS disks re-badged by HP).
Both Oracle and HP are very firmly stating that we will have
no negative performance from using Raid 5 and they have put this in
Behalf Of
Bellefeuille, Wayne S
Sent: 9 novembre, 2001 17:35
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Anyone out there have any experience running an Oracle
Data Warehouse on
an IBM P660 (6M1) over a Shark/RAID-5/SAN environment?
Work great?
Any horror stories?
Any gotchas?
My concern in us p
Anyone out there have any experience running an Oracle Data Warehouse on
an IBM P660 (6M1) over a Shark/RAID-5/SAN environment?
Work great?
Any horror stories?
Any gotchas?
My concern in us potentially converting to this environment (from an
AIX-SP/mirrored environment) has mostly to do with the
Message-
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
We are in the process of reorganizing and reconfiguring of our
disk space in preparation for an Oracle 8.1.6 upgrade in production,
and my sys admin wants to use RAID 5 for the drive on which the
Oracle 8.1.6
:35
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
We are in the process of reorganizing and reconfiguring of our
disk space in preparation for an Oracle 8.1.6 upgrade in production,
and my sys admin wants to use RAID 5 for the drive on which the
Oracle 8.1.6 software will be installed. Anyone know of
We have been RAID 5 on Compaq Tru64 for many years now. Make sure you have a
good-sized battery-backed RAM cache. Is your system more toward the OLTP or
data warehousing type environment? We have never compared performance, but
it seems to work fine for our needs.
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch
There's no reason not to install the Oracle vendor software on RAID 5.
Now, where you put your database is another issue. Probably as long as
it's not an OLTP database the overhead shouldn't be an issue.
Let the
We use raid 5 for everything, haven't come across any problems yet.
As for performance, I am not sure, as we don't encounter the same loads
as most bigger organizations probably encounter.
We are running oracle 8.0.5, 8.1.7, on clustered tru64 4.0f connected to a
SAN (HSG8
-- Catherine LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Anyone know of a reason
> why RAID 5 would not be OK for the software?
It works rather nicely if you tune the raid stripe to match
the system page (usually 4k or 8k). A 4k page works nicely
w/ 8 x 512byte chunks or 4 x 1K chunks, for exa
We are in the process of reorganizing and reconfiguring of our
disk space in preparation for an Oracle 8.1.6 upgrade in production,
and my sys admin wants to use RAID 5 for the drive on which the
Oracle 8.1.6 software will be installed. Anyone know of a reason
why RAID 5 would not be OK for the
Unix Performance Tuning - but its on
my desk at the office.
Christopher, I believe that you were unwilling to answer the actual
question - and just wanted to (understandably so) bash RAID 5. The
poster appeared to me to state that they *are* using a RAID 5
configuration.
To answer his question, I would
We raid 5 on an AIX box, we have 89 mount points for database files (data
and or index) as well as mount points for different kinds of scripts and
files, redo and archival. We had one problems with Fork Function Failed for
a while, Oracle said it was AIX, IBM said it was Oracle. We upped the
Raid 5 will degrade performance, not many mount points.
You will have contention, but that is not because of mount points or because
of the lack of them. It is due to the fact that everything is running on
the same set of disks.
Raid 5 takes a big hit on performance, but if that is your only
Hi Guru,
We will be implementing Oracle in unix machine with Hardware Raid 5. We
can't implement Raid 1 as we do not have sufficient disk space.
Initially, we thought of having many mount points .ie. 1 mount point for
data files, another for index files, other mount points for red
Hi,
that's correct. The rule of thumb is that RAID5 is usually the "Sys
Admin's choice" whereas the "DBA's choice" is more like
1-controller-per-disk-per-datafile ;)
James Howerton schrieb:
>
> I lost the battle. We have Hitachi raid 5 hooked-up to a Su
One thing to note is the 60% degragation of write performance when using
Raid5, that is why oracle strictly recommends against it. But to repeat
something said many times in the past, read only systems or very low writes
are great candiates for Raid 5.
"Do not criticize someone until you w
ieb:
>
> We are planning to move our database to Sun 4500 with A1000(RAID
> 5).Our system admin group has been working on this setup and I was
> told that the A1000 which is having 4
disks
> will be seen as just as
> one mount point after configuration.Is this the correct way of
>
I lost the battle. We have Hitachi raid 5 hooked-up to a Sun E10K and write
performance does "SUCK"!!!
Maybe "THEY" will listen next time;-)...
...JIM...
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/1/01 10:36:01 AM >>>
doesn't write performance kind of suck too?
doesn't write performance kind of suck too?
KK
-Original Message-
Jahnke
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Ravindra Basavaraja schrieb:
>
> We are planning to move our database to Sun 4500 with A1000(RAID 5).Our
> system a
Ravindra Basavaraja schrieb:
>
> We are planning to move our database to Sun 4500 with A1000(RAID 5).Our
> system admin group has been
> working on this setup and I was told that the A1000 which is having 4 disks
> will be seen as just as
> one mount point after configuration.I
configuration will make a 30 GIG logical drive. 10
GIG is used for the parity information
ROR mª¿ªm
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/31/01 11:45PM >>>
We are planning to move our database to Sun 4500 with A1000(RAID 5).Our
system admin group has been
working on this setup and I was told that
The A1000 has a max of 12 disks.
I would recommend against Raid 5 for performance reasons, although the
write-back cache covers some of the drawbacks.
A1000 is knowned to have slow cache, and consistency errors when they are
pushed to the brink of saturation.
But yes, Raid 5 with 4 disks will
We are planning to move our database to Sun 4500 with A1000(RAID 5).Our
system admin group has been
working on this setup and I was told that the A1000 which is having 4 disks
will be seen as just as
one mount point after configuration.Is this the correct way of
confuguration.Don't we see
for.
Here is the suggested configuration for the database server for this
product.
2 9GB HD in a RAID 1 - Suggested for the OS and LOGS
6 18GB HD in RAID 5 - Database
1 18GB HD Hot Spare
I realize that something of this nature would allow for a lot of disk
through-put (I would think), but it
73 matches
Mail list logo
