RE: Your experience with HP EVA 8100
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:25:13 -0500
Strange. We have the EVA 8100 series here and performance is grand compared to the MSA 1000s we migrated off of.
Our databases total around 1 TB, but that TB is made up of several db's, so our volume sounds quite a bit less than yours.
I know we have approximately 130 disks in the array and we create disk groups across ALL disks in the array and we're using VRAID-5 (supposedly better than typical RAID-5) and saves on storage space opposed to RAID-10.
Sr. Oracle DBA
Ingram Barge Company
Nashville, TN 37205
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the contents of this message without disclosing the contents to anyone, using them for any purpose, or storing or copying the information on any medium.
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Martin Bach Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Your experience with HP EVA 8100
I was wondering what your experience with the EVA 8100 was.
The background: I migrated a 2 node 10.2.0.3 32bit system to (a lot) more powerful hardware with plenty more of everything. Now the bottleneck shifted, from db server to storage which I anticipated.
Example: the backup to SAN storage using 2 channels (1.5T database + a few hundred gb of archived logs) always took around 6 hours on the old hardware but it seems the same script completely saturates the writeback cache of the array. Apparently there have been 250 busy commands in a period of 10 minutes. I don't think that a 2 channel backup should do this.
On top of that it seems that there isn't an awful lot of tuneables on the array but that could be my lack of understanding of the thing.
So how do you like the array?
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Tue Oct 27 2009 - 12:25:13 CDT