RE: How would you layout the files?

From: Smith, Steven K - MSHA <Smith.Steven_at_DOL.GOV>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:47:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Storage abundance? What's that?  

We're always making compromises for storage restrictions.  

Steve Smith

Desk: 303-231-5499

Fax: 303-231-5696  

Steve Smith

Desk: 303-231-5499

Fax: 303-231-5696

[] On Behalf Of Brian Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 3:26 PM
To: Andrew Kerber
Subject: Re: How would you layout the files?    

The no RAID option is definitely old-school and I realize I am dealing with some old-school thinking. I guess I've been spoiled over the last many years with storage abundance that this one throws me back to the old days (even then, I had Sun boxes with abundant enclosures). I know redo logs are nice and sequential, undo is a huge read/write monster, and everything else is somewhere in between. It's balancing the sequential reads versus the scattered reads. Hopefully, this client will see the light and the red tape will be cut to get a better system with appropriate storage. My current production environment is clustered HA storage, multipath fiber, RAC, blah, blah, blah (paid a lot for the multi-blahs by the way). So having been with that for a while, it's odd seeing this single box approach with a database that nearly approaches the disk size of each individual disk. Perhaps, they can get the 300GB option if only to delay space issues. Sigh.    

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Kerber <> wrote:

I would say you are back to the old fashioned options. Dont raid the remaining drives, you dont have enough drives for that. Mirror the redo, control files, and archive logs, then distrbute everything else the best you can. Put the undo on drive that otherwise has very little activity  

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Brian <> wrote:

Say you have a client that for political reasons only bought 1 single server with 6 internal disks (the first 2 of which are RAID-1'd for the OS). Because you cannot apply any reasonable sense that the client should really look for better server/storage options (i.e., change the client's mind), how would you install Oracle 10g Enterprise Release 2? The underlying OS is Windows 2003 Enterprise Server 64-bit and the hardware is Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 8GB RAM. The disks are 15K 160GB disks. The actual db size is 100GB with about 100 end users and a peak redo rate of less than 100K/second. Again, you cannot tell the client to purchase new storage or a better server. So working with what you have, how would you RAID the remaining disks and layout the Oracle binaries, controlfiles, redo logs, archive logs (yes, archiving will be enabled), and datafiles? RAID options to RAID-10 are available. Emails offering RAID-5 solutions will be auto-deleted. :)  

Looking forward to the discussion,


Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'



Received on Tue Dec 09 2008 - 09:47:34 CST

Original text of this message