Oracle OpenWorld in the Americas will never leave the West Coast and is
highly unlikely to leave San Francisco. Too convenient to Headquarters
If Miracle gave that class in Halifax, I'd go!
- "Boivin, Patrice J" <BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> May I suggest Halifax, Canada as a great location for this course???
>
> StilL waiting for Oracle OpenWorld to come here, somehow they never
> do.
>
> : )
>
> Regards,
> Patrice Boivin
> Systems Analyst (Oracle Certified DBA)
>
> Systems Admin & Operations | Admin. et Exploit. des systèmes
> Technology Services | Services technologiques
> Informatics Branch | Direction de l'informatique
> Maritimes Region, DFO | Région des Maritimes, MPO
>
> E-Mail: boivinp_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:06 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: DBA Experiences with Oracle and RAID 0+1
>
> you have no idea how badly most of us now want to come to that class.
> Not that I'd understand most of what was said, but just to listen :)
>
>
> --- Mogens Nørgaard <mln_at_miracleas.dk> wrote:
> > Jared,
> >
> > Good thought! We're running our annual Miracle Master Class (this
> > year
> > with Jonathan Lewis) this week and Cary Millsap (and his gang),
> > Jonathan
> > and James will arrive tomorrow (Monday), while Steve Adams, Lex de
> > Haan,
> > Stephan Haisley and a bunch of other guys will arrive on Tuesday.
> > I'll
> > keep this message and throw it up for discussion on the Oak Table
> > (see
> > Cary's wonderful article on www.Undskyld.Org)...
> >
> > Jared Still wrote:
> >
> > >Mogens,
> > >
> > >In regard to the number of spindles issue: James Morle has some
> > >excellent discussion on that in 'Scaling Oracle 8i'. ( I think
> > it's that
> > >book )
> > >
> > >When some of the newer larges drives are used in a given
> > configuration,
> > >they mabe be able to outperform older drives in a similar
> > configuration with
> > >a larger number of spindles.
> > >
> > >I say 'older' since smaller drives usually aren't using the latest
> > technology
> > >and the newer ones have sufficiently higher throughput to match
> the
> > >capability of a larger number of drives in given configuration.
> > >
> > >Food for thought, anyway.
> > >
> > >Jared
> > >
> > >
> > >On Sunday 20 January 2002 06:50, Mogens Nørgaard wrote:
> > >
> > >>Diego,
> > >>
> > >>I agree with you 100% and didn't express myself correctly in my
> > email.
> > >>The more spindles the better. What I meant to say was that you
> must
> > >>never buy disks by taking your total needed amount of space and
> > divide
> > >>by the number of big disks you can get hold on :). It's the
> number
> > of
> > >>IO's required by the disk system that matters, not the size...
> > >>
> > >>Thanks for making this clear to everyone.
> > >>
> > >>Mogens
> > >>
> > >>Diego Cutrone wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Mogens:
> > >>> Just let me disagree with you at only one point. According to
> > my
> > >>>experience, I think that the size of the disks in an array does
> > matter
> > >>>sometimes. It's not the same to have 24 9GB disks that to have
> > only 3 of
> > >>>73GB. You have 24 spindles againts 3, the first option (in a
> well
> > >>>configured system of course) will give you better performance in
> > >>>enviroments where you have a lot of concurrency and many users.
> > >>> However I think that what I've written above might not be
> > correct (may
> > >>>be it should be tested) if the 73GB outstands for a long way the
> > 9GB disks
> > >>>in terms of seek time and transfer rate.
> > >>> Take a look at an extract of Gaja's paper "Implementing RAID
> on
> > >>>Oracle":
> > >>>
> > >>>"5) Procure the smallest drive money can buy, keeping in mind
> > scalability,
> > >>>limits of the host
> > >>>machine, the disk array and growth projections for the database.
> > This is a
> > >>>tough one these
> > >>>days, with 18 GB drives considered as small drives.
> > >>>
> > >>>6) Bigger and faster drives are not always better than smaller
> > slower
> > >>>drives, as the seek times
> > >>>for larger and faster drives with larger form factors, may be
> more
> > than
> > >>>their smaller and
> > >>>slower counterparts. This is not that big of an issue, if your
> > drives
> > >>>support a built-in track
> > >>>buffer cache for storing an entire track's worth of data from
> read
> > >>>request(s)."
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>HTH
> > >>>Greeting
> > >>>Diego Cutrone
> > >>>
> > >>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> > >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:25 PM
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jon,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>It's one of those "how many bags will I need in the
> supermarket?"
> > >>>>questions - it depends.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Consider:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>- RAID 1+0 is much better than 0+1.
> > >>>>- Three disks is not much w.r.t. IO capability. If you have
> three
> > >>>>concurrent users you'll be OK :)
> > >>>>- Size doesn't matter (who cares if it's 10, 36 or 73 Gig
> disks?
> > It's
> > >>>>the IO capabilitity that counts)
> > >>>>- I'm new to this list, so I don't know if this will work, but
> > I've
> > >>>>attached a brilliant presentation by our old friend James Morle
> > (check
> > >>>>out www.ScaleAbilities.com) regarding SAN, NAS and RAS (Random
> > Acronym
> > >>>>Seminar).
> > >>>>- If you're only striping across three disks (is that really a
> > SAN?)
> > >>>>just SAME (Stripe And Mirror Everything). It might not be good,
> > but it's
> > >>>>simple.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Jon Behnke wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>We are in the process of setting up a SAN using RAID 0+1 for
> our
> > >>>>>
> > >>>database.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>In our current environment, we are able to separate our
> tables,
> > indexes,
> > >>>>>rollback segments, and archive logs on different disks. On
> the
> > SAN we
> > >>>>>
> > >>>would
> > >>>
> > >>>>>have six 73 gig disks on RAID 0+1 for a total of about 210 Gig
> > of usable
> > >>>>>space (3 disks worth of space).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Some white papers that I have read suggest attempting to
> > separate the
> > >>>>>
> > >>>data,
> > >>>
> > >>>>>indexes, and rollback segments on separate RAID volumes, and
> > others
> > >>>>>
> > >>>simply
> > >>>
> > >>>>>suggest that the performance boost of striping will supercede
>
=== message truncated ===
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Rachel Carmichael
INET: wisernet100_at_yahoo.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).
Received on Mon Jan 21 2002 - 10:55:24 CST
