| 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: db datafiles on NetApp FAS940 filer
san storage is difficult to benchmark becuase it has such a huge cache
(usually at least 16GB) and becuase performance depends on what other
systems are using it.
for write intensive san is very fast (2 ~ 5 ms) until the cache fils up
and then you faced with synchronous disk access - which is frequently
raid5 (which is slow for writes).
also switches & san adapters are shared so that too can become a bottle neck.
so you can see artificially high performance when you first benchmark your shiny new san only to find its not nearly as fast when under stress
steve
Mladen Gogala <mladen_at_wangtrading.com>
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
02/10/2004 05:32 PM
Please respond to oracle-l
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
cc:
Subject: Re: db datafiles on NetApp FAS940 filer
On 02/10/2004 05:07:31 PM, Joze Senegacnik wrote:
> Babette,
> some of my customers with SANs are far below that: from 2 to 5ms
> (normal
> load).
>
> Thanks!
> Joze
What SANs are that? EMC or HP/Hitachi? Those HP/Hitachi things are really, really fast with decent amount of write-back cache, but for some reason, much more software is available for EMC.
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Wed Feb 11 2004 - 08:24:09 CST
 |
 |