| 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: DataWarehouse Configuration
Well, serial and parallel is much slower than ethernet. You have to look at what the bottleneck is likely to be. I'm not an expert on SANs, but with that much data, there might be advantages to separating out the storage from the actual database engine. If you want a bunch of info on SANs, just call EMC or some other disk vendor, I'm sure they'd be happy to take you to lunch and discuss the advantages of that approach. Spring is coming, there might even be some golf thrown in for good measure.
Dan - Not an expert in DW or SANs or Networking, but I know enough to be dangerous in all 3
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:07 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hello,
Some data warehousing questions:
We are considering a setup where we have two separate machines, 1 for doing the ETL (ExtractTransformLoad)processing, and 1 for the production machine. Our env is Oracle 8.1.6 on Sun. The main idea is to insulate the production machine from the effects of ETL processing; the only impact ETL would have on the production machine would be when the ETL has completed and the data is copied over to the production machine, which leads me to my question: what methods have been used to minimize the time needed for this copy step?
The amount of data to be transferred would be around 200GB, but expected
to grow very fast.
Both machines would be part of an existing ethernet network, and we've
considered the following:
1) Just do the transfer over the existing ethernet network (figure about
150GB/hour)
2) Position the machines close to each other, and run a short (6-foot or
less)
cable between serial ports or parallel ports on both machines 3) Set up a separate network; install an ethernet card in each machine, and
connect them with ethernet
4) Go to a "disk-farm" setup - don't know a lot about this, but both
machines
would access subsets of a large shared disk array (is this EMC? or other vendors?)
The consensus is that fiberoptic, although faster, would be a waste since then the limiting factor would be disk read and write speeds.
Anyway, I would appreciate any comments/suggestions regarding the above,
especially #4, and any other approaches.
Thanks to any responders.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Bill Becker
INET: beckerb_at_mfldclin.edu
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).
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). Received on Fri Mar 02 2001 - 10:01:56 CST
 |
 |