Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> ASM and SAN Layout

ASM and SAN Layout

From: <ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:15:06 +0000
Message-Id: <092620070215.19881.46F9C0AA0004AFB400004DA92200762302079D9A00000E09A1020E979D@comcast.net>


I asked a similiar question a couple of weeks ago. I have done some more reading and have some additional questions. Here is what I am considering:

  1. One bigfile tablespace for my data and one for my indexes. Is this appropriate?
  2. Is it preferable to create one diskgroup for each LUN? Or is one diskgroup per the following more appropriate

bigfile tablespace with my data
bigfile tablespace with my indexes
bigfile tablespace with my metrics/logging data system tablespace
sysaux tablespace
undo tablespace
redo
undo
arcive logs

3. Should I keep all of the above on dedicated spindles? I was told that since redo and archive logs do serial writes and data files do random reads and writes, performance is better if these are on seperate dedicated spindles? What about seperating out my indexes from data on different spindles? Along with the rest of them?

It appears that the major advantage with ASM for me would be the reduction in datafiles to manage. Anyone familiar with the AOL project that adopted ASM early? Oracle sent us a powerpoint presentation by Grant McAlister at Amazon. He found that moving to ASM significantly reduced the number of datafiles they had to manage and it reduced their maitenance effort. Anyone else find this?

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Tue Sep 25 2007 - 21:15:06 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US