RE: DB RAID Setup
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:36:46 -0500
Also, if your log buffer is too large, the automatic log buffer flushes performed when the buffer is 1/3 full may not be happening frequently enough. WIth a high commit rate, most of your log writes will be performed on commit, causing excessive waits. The buffer should be just large enough to minimize log buffer space waits; usually it should be 4 MB or less.
Prime Services Databases Americas
One Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Tim Gorman Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:50 PM To: martinfbrown_at_hotmail.com
Cc: rob.dempsey_at_5one.co.uk; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: DB RAID Setup
The event "log file sync" is usually caused by two things:
- LGWR is operating synchonously upon COMMIT (i.e. LGWR too slow, probably waiting excessively on event "log file parallel write")
- LGWR is being continuously interrupted by too-frequent COMMITs
The first is the situation where you want faster disk or even SSD. The second is an application issue that you'll have to take up with the folks who designed, built, or use the application supported by the database.
With regards to the potential cause being slow I/O under the online redo log files...
Your "architect" has multiplexed the online redo log files to RAID1 volumes as well as RAID5 volumes. Clearly, the lowest common denominator is at work here -- that is, the performance of writes to the online redo logfiles is determined by the slowest write. So, in multiplexing between a faster RAID1 volume and a slower RAID5 volume, the overall write performance will be constrained by the slower RAID5 volume.
This is somewhat nonsensical -- why bother basing any online redo log files on RAID1 at all? The reason for RAID1 mirroring is redundancy without loss of read/write performance, and the reason for RAID5 is redundancy to maximize usable space but at a cost to write performance. Space is being wasted on the RAID1 volume because the better performance it provides is not being used. You might as well have two RAID5 volumes for multiplexing those online redo log files; it wouldn't hurt performance any further, and you'd recover some usable disk space, if you needed it.
My advice is: first determine if the event "log file parallel write" comprises a significant amount of total "DB time" (i.e. 10% or more)? Is it in the "Top 5 Timed Events" list in either STATSPACK or AWR? Because if I/O performance isn't causing this problem, then there is no sense discussing the I/O subsystem further. Instead, get to know the application code through examination of SQL traces and V$SESSION_EVENT, then approach the application developers/architects/vendors with specific findings about too-small transactions or excessive commit commands.
If "log file parallel write" is significant however, then I'd suggest to cease putting online redo log files to the RAID5 volume, as a test. You can issue ALTER DATABASE statements to drop those log file members on the RAID5 volume, or you can add additional log file members on the RAID1 volumes and then drop the log file members on RAID5. Either way, these actions can be performed while the database is up, fully available, and nobody will know (or need to know) that the change is occurring. Manipulating online redo log files is definitely an ONLINE activity...
That's just my opinion, your mileage may vary...
consultant - Evergreen Database Technologies, Inc. P.O. Box 630791, Highlands Ranch CO 80163-0791
website = http://www.EvDBT.com/ email = Tim_at_EvDBT.com mobile = +1-303-885-4526 fax = +1-303-484-3608 Yahoo IM = tim_evdbt
Martin Brown wrote:
I have a similar question regarding raid 5 and what I perceive to be a "potential" problem. I am experiencing a high number of logfile sync waits that appear most afternoons as the daily load starts to increase. We're running 10.2.0.3 RAC with a 8 node cluster. We use a 3par storage system for the database. My architect has configured both raid 1 and raid 5 diskgroups and he duplexes the online redo logs and controlfiles to raid5.
Now, he insists that the logfile sync waits are not related in any way to the raid5 configuration and the 3par storage solution is state-of-the-art. But the only remedy I can find is to move to faster SSD. Is it possible that the high afternoon activity coupled with the raid5 configuration is the root of my problem?
I've looked at other stuff too. The log switches are 2 - 3 an hour. The log buffer is never full. Anyone have any other suggestions as to where to look?
Subject: DB RAID Setup Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:06:20 +0000 From: Rob.Dempsey_at_5one.co.uk To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org Hi Oracle 10g2 (data warehouse) I thought I would ask peoples' thoughts on the following. I have setup our database whereby the index tablespace and datatablespace are separate. This is not for performance reason only for ease of maintenance.
We are being advised by the SAN provider to use the following RAID layout
Archive redo Logs - RAID 10 Redo Logs - RAID 10 Temp tablespace - RAID 10 Undo tablespace - RAID 10 Index tablespaces - RAID 10 System tablespace - RAID 5 Data tablespaces - RAID 5 Redo logs / Temp tablespace I agree with. To use RAID 5 for data, I understand there is a writeperformance hit but this is a data warehouse so should be ok (Ideally I would like that RAID 10 as well). But to have the index tablespace on RAID 10 and data tablespace on RAID 5 I found that strange. When I asked the reason why I was give the response 'that is what Oracle recommends'.
Has anyone heard this before?
You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. Learn more about Windows Live <http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/>
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
Received on Wed Dec 10 2008 - 08:36:46 CST