| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB6E6.0D062800
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
This makes sence - to have RAID 5 for historical (only read) data. For everythig else - RAID 0+1.
Alex Hillman
-----Original Message-----
From: Madhavan Amruthur [mailto:mad012000_at_hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:56 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1
Hi Alex,
Its been almost a year and half since we did this and I went back and
checked how we laid it out.
I just checked the spreadsheet, we had RAID 1 for TEMP, current fact table
data and index data.
We had RAID 5 for historical fact and index data.
We had RAID 0+1 set up for RBS, redo logs and dimesion table data.
This was a set up that we built at that time and this was a benchmarking system and no new data was being added at that time except we were loading the aggregates based on the data available.
This probably was not the best layout but for our scenario this worked pretty well and within the limitations of the resources we had.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Madhavan
IBM Corporation Webserver Division
>From: Alex Hillman <alex_hillman_at_physia.com>
>Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
>Subject: RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1
>Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:48:56 -0800
>
>But doesn't moving involve writing (into data tablespaces, indexes or index
>creation)? In this case what did you win? I think that if you can not
>afford
>to have everything in RAID 0+1 you should have RBS, TEMP, REDO LOGS and
>most
>often changing data and indexes on RAID 0+1. By the way, the difference
>between let say 1TB of RAID 5 and RAID 0+1 is 0.8TB of disk space. If we
>assume that 10G disk cost $500 then 0.8TB should cost $40,000. It is
>nothing
>comparing with other costs of 1TB DW. Any thoughts anybody?
>
>Alex Hillman
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:03 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
>RAID-5 should be good for the DW application but the area where information
>is loaded (involves lot of writes), we loaded them in a RAID 1 area and
>then
>
>we moved them over to the RAID-5 area as RAID-1 is good for writes.
>
>Hope this helps.
>Regards,
>
>Madhavan
>
>
> >From: CHUCK_HAMILTON_at_qvc.com
> >Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> >Subject: Re: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1
> >Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:39:58 -0800
> >
> >
> >DWs are typically high read, low write applications. RAID-5 should be
>fine
> >for all but TEMP tablespace, RBS tablespace, redo logs, and archived
>logs.
> >RAID 0+1 is also good but requires twice as much disk.
> >--
> >Chuck Hamilton
> >QVC Inc.
> >Enterprise Technical Services
> >Oracle DBA
> >
> >
> >
> > "Surjit
> > Sharma" To: Multiple recipients of
> >list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> > <surjits_at_ozema cc: (bcc: CHUCK
> >HAMILTON/QVC)
> > il.com.au> Subject: Data Warehousing
>-
> >RAID5 or RAID0-1
> > Ext: NA
> > Sent by:
> > root_at_fatcity.c
> > om
> >
> >
> > 05/05/00 09:14
> > AM
> > Please respond
> > to ORACLE-L
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi
> >
> >I need your thoughts on RAID0-1 vs RAID5 configuration on very large
>data
> >warehousing project. The expected data is going to be about 1 Tera byte,
> >10 Giga byte Memory, Sun box E6500 , Oracle 8.1.5.
> >
> >I am told that for data warehousing RAID01 (mirroring and striping) is
>the
> >good balance between RAID5 and no RAID at all. Does anyone has any
> >experience on this? I will be delighted to hear your thoughts.
> >
> >My main consideration is to be able to load the data in the given window
> >(overnight) and good response time for the queries.
> >
> >Thanks in advance.
> >
> >Surjit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Author:
> > INET: CHUCK_HAMILTON_at_qvc.com
> >
> >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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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).
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>--
>Author: Madhavan Amruthur
> INET: mad012000_at_hotmail.com
>
>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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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).
-- Author: Madhavan Amruthur INET: mad012000_at_hotmail.com 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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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). ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB6E6.0D062800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0"> <TITLE>RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=2>This makes sence - to have RAID 5 for historical (only read) data. For everythig else - RAID 0+1.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Alex Hillman</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Madhavan Amruthur [<A HREF="mailto:mad012000_at_hotmail.com">mailto:mad012000_at_hotmail.com</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:56 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Alex,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Its been almost a year and half since we did this and I went back and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>checked how we laid it out.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>I just checked the spreadsheet, we had RAID 1 for TEMP, current fact table </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>data and index data.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>We had RAID 5 for historical fact and index data.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>We had RAID 0+1 set up for RBS, redo logs and dimesion table data.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>This was a set up that we built at that time and this was a benchmarking </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>system and no new data was being added at that time except we were loading </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>the aggregates based on the data available.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>This probably was not the best layout but for our scenario this worked </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>pretty well and within the limitations of the resources we had.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Hope this helps.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Regards,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Madhavan</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>IBM Corporation Webserver Division</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>>From: Alex Hillman <alex_hillman_at_physia.com></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Subject: RE: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:48:56 -0800</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>But doesn't moving involve writing (into data tablespaces, indexes or index</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>creation)? In this case what did you win? I think that if you can not </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>afford</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>to have everything in RAID 0+1 you should have RBS, TEMP, REDO LOGS and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>most</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>often changing data and indexes on RAID 0+1. By the way, the difference</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>between let say 1TB of RAID 5 and RAID 0+1 is 0.8TB of disk space. If we</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>assume that 10G disk cost $500 then 0.8TB should cost $40,000. It is </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>nothing</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>comparing with other costs of 1TB DW. Any thoughts anybody?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Alex Hillman</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:03 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>RAID-5 should be good for the DW application but the area where information</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>is loaded (involves lot of writes), we loaded them in a RAID 1 area and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>then</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>we moved them over to the RAID-5 area as RAID-1 is good for writes.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Hope this helps.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Madhavan</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >From: CHUCK_HAMILTON_at_qvc.com</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Subject: Re: Data Warehousing - RAID5 or RAID0-1</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:39:58 -0800</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >DWs are typically high read, low write applications. RAID-5 should be </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>fine</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >for all but TEMP tablespace, RBS tablespace, redo logs, and archived </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>logs.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >RAID 0+1 is also good but requires twice as much disk.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >--</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Chuck Hamilton</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >QVC Inc.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Enterprise Technical Services</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Oracle DBA</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > "Surjit</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Sharma" To: Multiple recipients of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > <surjits_at_ozema cc: (bcc: CHUCK</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >HAMILTON/QVC)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > il.com.au> Subject: Data Warehousing </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>-</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >RAID5 or RAID0-1</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Ext: NA</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Sent by:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > root_at_fatcity.c</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > om</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > 05/05/00 09:14</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > AM</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Please respond</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > to ORACLE-L</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Hi</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >I need your thoughts on RAID0-1 vs RAID5 configuration on very large </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>data</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >warehousing project. The expected data is going to be about 1 Tera byte,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >10 Giga byte Memory, Sun box E6500 , Oracle 8.1.5.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >I am told that for data warehousing RAID01 (mirroring and striping) is </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >good balance between RAID5 and no RAID at all. Does anyone has any</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >experience on this? I will be delighted to hear your thoughts.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >My main consideration is to be able to load the data in the given window</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >(overnight) and good response time for the queries.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Thanks in advance.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Surjit</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >--</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Author:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > INET: CHUCK_HAMILTON_at_qvc.com</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> >also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>________________________________________________________________________</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>--</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Author: Madhavan Amruthur</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> INET: mad012000_at_hotmail.com</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>--------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).</FONT> </P> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>________________________________________________________________________</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>-- </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Author: Madhavan Amruthur</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2> INET: mad012000_at_hotmail.com</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>--------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in</FONT>Received on Fri May 05 2000 - 18:02:56 CDT
 |
 |