From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Wed Sep 21 23:57:40 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8M4vewF007748 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:57:40 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8M4vZ6H007736 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:57:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id EC1611EEA33; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29864-07; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 6973C1EEAD3; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:57:21 -0500 (EST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=LcQmcKasqrweKeuKtQQmvfM/3rUUXmfuxHmJS93vkAHKPbynej5iJMHN6kRHHebJCjZ0xfvuLk9e6ZNGq23CpNluS1U3gTwxWha6xKLbnnZlOl3OasivziFM5+lPxn6X9QPLgWABJfI8YfKab0iDH4oFqbpdXSwqvZe4STZIZgc= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:55:29 -0600 From: Bryan Wells To: Oracle-L Subject: Hard Disk selections MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2614_12452123.1127364929394" X-archive-position: 25788 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: bunjibry@gmail.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: bunjibry@gmail.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-mailscan-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-mailscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP autolearn=no version=2.63 ------=_Part_2614_12452123.1127364929394 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Let me apologize in advance if i leave any good facts out and have to restate... I am in process of migrating an existing windows 2k, 9.2.0.5test environment to some beefier hardware attached to IBM FastT SAN (?). The current environment is a Dell Poweredge 6400 p3 4x500 MHz/ with internal an= d external disk being 76GB 15k RAID 5. The new environment will be a blade with 2x2.5Ghz, at least, attached to the san. My question; will performance= , Oracle that is, suffer going with a bigger disk (146Gb) on the SAN, or should I stay with the 76GB disk? The requirement is to not allow the performance to degrade below the existing SLA, however, we will have more users hitting this test instance once the cut over has been made. Because the hardware will not be over 4+ years old, my gut feel is that the bigger disk should not be an issue in this type of environment any more than that seen with the 76Gb in the existing environment, however, how do I prove this? Any links to help Green DBA Man understand Oracle and disk selections? As always, thanks for your help and patience. -- Bryan Wells bunjibry@gmail.com Oracle DBA hopeful ------=_Part_2614_12452123.1127364929394 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Let me apologize in advance if i leave any good facts out and have to = restate...
 
I am in process of migrating an existing windows 2k, 9.2.0.5 test environment to some beefier hardware attached to= IBM FastT SAN (?).  The current environment is a Dell Poweredge 6400 = p3 4x500 MHz/ with internal and external disk being 76GB 15k RAID 5.  = The new environment will be a blade with=20 2x2.5Ghz, at least, attached to the san.  My question; will performanc= e, Oracle that is, suffer going with a bigger disk (146Gb) on the SAN, or s= hould I stay with the 76GB disk?  The requirement is to not allow the = performance to degrade below the existing SLA, however, we will have more u= sers hitting this test instance once the cut over has been made.  Beca= use the hardware will not be over 4+ years old, my gut feel is that the big= ger disk should not be an issue in this type of environment any more than t= hat seen with the 76Gb in the existing environment, however, how do I prove= this?
 
Any links to help Green DBA Man understand Oracle and disk selections?=
As always, thanks for your help and patience.

--
Bryan Wells
bunjib= ry@gmail.com
Oracle DBA hopeful
------=_Part_2614_12452123.1127364929394-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l