Re: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )

That must have been the problem. Since the XP512 was configured by HP and the mountpoint to LUN mapping is still not understood by our SysAdmiins, the single mountpoint database must have been sitting on only 2 or 3 LUNs, hence getting throttled. Spreading the DB across lots of mount points just increases our dumb luck of getting spread across more LUNs.

Thanks for the info.

Jack C. Applewhite - Database Administrator Austin (Texas) Independent School District 512.414.9715 (wk) / 512.935.5929 (pager)

 I feel so unnecessary. -- Rufus Thomas

               ( "Do the Funky Chicken")

"Keith Moore" <kmoore_at_zephyrus.com>
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
09/11/2006 11:07 AM
Please respond to
kmoore_at_zephyrus.com

To
kevinc_at_polyserve.com
cc
oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject
Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )

Kevin,

Can you elaborate on this or point me to a source? I am working for a large company that uses Hitachi SANs and we are getting HORRIBLE performance for a data warehouse (i.e. 15 minutes to scan a 100 MB table).

The server people and SAN people are both in separate organizations and we do not have much information, other than what they provide. They tell us that "all is well".

Any help would be appreciated.

Keith

> ...right, an hitachi 9000 series (OEMed). This things are famous for
> throttling back I/Os on a per-LUN basis.... but that has nothing to
> do with the number of writers.
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l