RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration Standards

From: Bowes, Chris <Chris.Bowes_at_kosa.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:33:02 -0400
Message-Id: <10626.117564@fatcity.com>

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_01C023D0.77BBDB86
Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Satar.

Just a few thoughts. First, no, your answer didn't sound mean. I hope my original reply to yours (as well as this one) didn't either. To discuss your points:

yes OFA addresses naming issues. However, an OFA paper for NT has been a scarce commodity. A chunk of his paper was on OFA for NT and what it meant to/for him.
Yes, you would think that common sense does dictate that you spread things out. Unfortuneately there are too many times when I have dealt with hardware folks who can get two 30g drives cheaper than six 10g drives and say "There, you have 60g. Go to town!" and think they did me a favor... His paper dealt with generalities like "keep indexes separate from table data" and keep system separate from tables and indexes" and used a 7 disc approach for his example. Based upon that approach, this should be applicable to most scenarios. Granted not all. But when you get down to a 2 or 3 disc option, you've pretty much killed the IO performance anyway.
You can make some iron-clad rules and enforceable ideals. His paper was saying to put tables in a tablespace named DATA##_<SID>.dbf, put indexes into INDX##_<SID>.dbf. Put Snapshots into a tablespace of it's own, nothing but system stuff in system. Things like that, you can standardize. You publish it as a standard and make people justify not following it. As DBA's we are here to be the gatekeeper to make sure user tables are not created in the system tablespace or that indexes don't go in the same tablespace as the table it was created for.
Agreed that RAID levels cannot be made standard for everything, but this isn't what Sean was doing. He was doing what you said at the end of #4. He was listing a file type (like redo logs) and listing the preferred RAID solution for them in order of desirability (For redo logs, he listed no raid first, then raid 0, then raid 1 then raid 5).

I understand that no 2 installs are alike and that dynamic solutions to the situations at hand are needed. However, you can publish a set of guidelines and say, "if you violate them, you had better have a good reason". That's what separates us from the average Joe. We know what we are doing (at least we think we do :) ) and we enforce what we believe to be in the best interests of the system at hand. If we can't set a standard or do what is right for the system we are admin'ing, then we're just those wierd people who mutter at their screens and squirrel tapes for rainy days... The key paragraph to Sean's paper was the opening one: "The purpose of this document is to list the configuration standard guidelines which Organon (Ireland) Ltd., hereafter referred to as O(I)L, will normally apply to installations of Oracle software on it's servers. A secondary function of the document is to provide vendors in advance with a view to incorporating these standards during planning phase of projects where the application software requires Oracle." Basically "this is my companies standard and since I am telling you in advance, you had better follow it or have a real good reason why you didn't."

I highly recommend Sean's excellent paper for reading. Even if you don't think it applies to you, it is good thinking material. Take care everyone. Have a good day.

--Chris
Chris.Bowes_at_Kosa.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Satar Naghshineh [mailto:Satar.Naghshineh_at_irvine.mellesgriot.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:40 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration Standards

I must admit, I am at a disadvantage because I didn't read his paper. But here are some questions I have in regards to the ability to standardize installations:

Doesn't OFA address issues in naming conventions?
Doesn't common sense dictate that you want to spread I/O out evenly? How can you have a standard on "file locations" when I might have two hard drives and someone else have 20?
"what goes in which tablespace" Assuming that you are meaning "objects in Tablespaces", cannot be standardized, not even SYSTEM.
"what RAID levels are preferred", There is no standards in RAID preference. One might choose not to run on a RAID system. Sean might tell us of the different RAID systems and the pro and cons of them based on the type of database of a certain set of data, but he can't say if you run an OLTP database you should run RAID 50.

Again, naming conventions are covered by OFA, if you need a copy, order it from Oracle. There can be no standard database install. If you believe in a standard base install, you probably believe in an answer to someone's question on "How can I improve my performance on Oracle" or "How do I backup my database".

I've been known to sound mean at times, and I want to let you know that is not my intention. My argument is that there can be no standard base install. If there was a way, then every Joe would be an Oracle DBA and I wouldn't have to work so hard.

Regards,
Satar

P.S. No offense to Sean either, I don't know the guy, but I appreciate his kind intentions.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C023D0.77BBDB86
Content-Type: text/html;

charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration Standards</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=141392412-21092000>Hi
Satar.  </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000>     Just a few thoughts.  First, no, your answer didn't sound mean.  I hope my original reply to yours (as well as this one) didn't either.  To discuss your points:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=141392412-21092000>1.
yes OFA addresses naming issues.  However, an OFA paper for NT has been a scarce commodity.  A chunk of his paper was on OFA for NT and what it meant to/for him.   </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000>2.  Yes, you would think that common sense does dictate that you spread things out.  Unfortuneately there are too many times when I have dealt with hardware folks who can get two 30g drives cheaper than six 10g drives and say "There, you have 60g.  Go to town!" and think they did me a favor...  His paper dealt with generalities like "keep indexes separate from  table data" and keep system separate from tables and indexes" and used a 7 disc approach for his example.  Based upon that approach, this should be applicable to most scenarios.  Granted not all.  But when you get down to a 2 or 3 disc option, you've pretty much killed the IO performance anyway. 
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000>3.  You can make some iron-clad rules and enforceable ideals.  His paper was saying to put tables in a tablespace named DATA##_<SID>.dbf, put indexes into INDX##_<SID>.dbf.  Put Snapshots into a tablespace of it's own, nothing but system stuff in system.  Things like that, you can standardize.  You publish it as a standard and make people justify not following it.  As DBA's we are here to be the gatekeeper to make sure user tables are not created in the system tablespace or that indexes don't go in the same tablespace as the table it was created for.  </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000>4.  Agreed that RAID levels cannot be made standard for everything, but this isn't what Sean was doing.  He was doing what you said at the end of #4.  He was listing a file type (like redo logs) and listing the preferred RAID solution for them in order of desirability (For redo logs, he listed no raid first, then raid 0, then raid 1 then raid 5).  </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=141392412-21092000>I
understand that no 2 installs are alike and that dynamic solutions to the situations at hand are needed.  However, you can publish a set of guidelines and say, "if you violate them, you had better have a good reason".   That's what separates us from the average Joe.  We know what we are doing (at least we think we do :)  ) and we enforce what we believe to be in the best interests of the system at hand.  If we can't set a standard or do what is right for the system we are admin'ing, then we're just those wierd people who mutter at their screens and squirrel tapes for rainy days...  The key paragraph to Sean's paper was the opening one: "The purpose of this document is to list the configuration standard guidelines which Organon (Ireland) Ltd., hereafter referred to as O(I)L, will normally apply to installations of Oracle software on it's servers.  A secondary function of the document is to provide vendors in advance with a view to incorporating these standards during planning phase of projects where the application software requires Oracle."   Basically "this is my companies standard and since I am telling you in advance, you had better follow it or have a real good reason why you didn't."</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=141392412-21092000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=141392412-21092000>I
highly recommend Sean's excellent paper for reading.  Even if you don't think it applies to you, it is good thinking material.  Take care everyone.  Have a good day.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>--Chris</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Chris.Bowes_at_Kosa.com</FONT> </P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>

  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman"   size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Satar Naghshineh   [mailto:Satar.Naghshineh_at_irvine.mellesgriot.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday,   September 20, 2000 9:40 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Multiple recipients of list   ORACLE-L<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Oracle Win NT Configuration   Standards<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I must admit, I am at a disadvantage   because I didn't read his paper. But here are some questions I have in regards   to the ability to standardize installations:</FONT></P>   <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>1. Doesn't OFA address issues in   naming conventions? </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>2. Doesn't common sense dictate that   you want to spread I/O out evenly? How can you have a standard on "file   locations" when I might have two hard drives and someone else have   20?</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>3. "what goes in which tablespace"   Assuming that you are meaning "objects in Tablespaces", cannot be   standardized, not even SYSTEM. </FONT></P>   <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>4. "what RAID levels are preferred",   There is no standards in RAID preference. One might choose not to run on a   RAID system. Sean might tell us of the different RAID systems and the pro and   cons of them based on the type of database of a certain set of data, but he   can't say if you run an OLTP database you should run RAID 50.</FONT></P>   <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Again, naming conventions are covered   by OFA, if you need a copy, order it from Oracle. There can be no standard   database install. If you believe in a standard base install, you probably   believe in an answer to someone's question on "How can I improve my   performance on Oracle" or "How do I backup my database".</FONT></P>   <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I've been known to sound mean at   times, and I want to let you know that is not my intention. My argument is   that there can be no standard base install. If there was a way, then every Joe   would be an Oracle DBA and I wouldn't have to work so hard. </FONT></P>   <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Regards,<BR>Satar</FONT> </P>   <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>P.S.  No offense to Sean either, Received on Thu Sep 21 2000 - 08:33:02 CDT