Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7F631.001DEB31"
Subject: RE: ASM IO distribution on a SAN
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:02 -0400
Message-ID: <C0A5E31718FC064A91E9FD7BE2F081B1D5156E@exchange.gridapp.com>
Thread-Topic: ASM IO distribution on a SAN
References: <091320071658.7138.46E96C23000BBF7600001BE22200748184079D9A00000E09A1020E979D@comcast.net>
From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@gridapp.com>
To: <ryan_gaffuri@comcast.net>,
 <paul.baumgartel@credit-suisse.com>,
 <oracle-l@freelists.org>
Cc: "Baumgartel, Paul" <paul.baumgartel@credit-suisse.com>
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org
Precedence: normal
Reply-to: mzito@gridapp.com
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7F631.001DEB31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


It is unlikely your storage array has the capability to present a =
multi-TB lun, or that from an administrative perspective you would want =
such a thing.  ASM would be a fine way to evenly distribute IO across a =
series of reasonably sized LUNs.  I think Paul's point was to not count =
on the striping from a performance perspective, simply an administrative =
ones.

Matt

--
Matthew Zito
Chief Scientist
GridApp Systems
P: 646-452-4090
mzito@gridapp.com
http://www.gridapp.com


-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org on behalf of =
ryan_gaffuri@comcast.net
Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:58 PM
To: paul.baumgartel@credit-suisse.com; oracle-l@freelists.org
Cc: Baumgartel, Paul
Subject: RE: ASM IO distribution on a SAN
=20
So I don't need to ask the SAN admins to set up a series of LUNs? They =
can just make me one big mount point for my datafiles and it will be =
evenly distributed?=20

We may be talking 5 TBs/day of data we are inserting at full deployment =
plus 4 million queries.=20


------_=_NextPart_001_01C7F631.001DEB31
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>RE: ASM IO distribution on a SAN</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It is unlikely your storage array has the capability =
to present a multi-TB lun, or that from an administrative perspective =
you would want such a thing.&nbsp; ASM would be a fine way to evenly =
distribute IO across a series of reasonably sized LUNs.&nbsp; I think =
Paul's point was to not count on the striping from a performance =
perspective, simply an administrative ones.<BR>
<BR>
Matt<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Matthew Zito<BR>
Chief Scientist<BR>
GridApp Systems<BR>
P: 646-452-4090<BR>
mzito@gridapp.com<BR>
<A HREF=3D"http://www.gridapp.com">http://www.gridapp.com</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org on behalf of =
ryan_gaffuri@comcast.net<BR>
Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:58 PM<BR>
To: paul.baumgartel@credit-suisse.com; oracle-l@freelists.org<BR>
Cc: Baumgartel, Paul<BR>
Subject: RE: ASM IO distribution on a SAN<BR>
<BR>
So I don't need to ask the SAN admins to set up a series of LUNs? They =
can just make me one big mount point for my datafiles and it will be =
evenly distributed?<BR>
<BR>
We may be talking 5 TBs/day of data we are inserting at full deployment =
plus 4 million queries.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7F631.001DEB31--
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l