Re: What do others do for database file mounts

From: Michael Cunningham <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:57:42 -0800
Message-ID: <>

NetApp is my favorite because of the reliability I've experienced. Here is how I've configured before.

My environment used NFS.
1 volume for the datafiles named /DB_UNIQUE_NAME/datafiles 1 volume for archive log files name /DB_UNIQUE_NAMEarch/arch 1 volume for redo logs /redologs/DB_UNIQUE_NAME

This setup was nice because I could restore a snapshot of /DB_UNIQUE_NAME only (not /DB_UNIQUE_NAMEarch) and then roll forward using the archive log files in /DB_UNIQUE_NAMEarch.

Redologs duplexed to local disk also.

I did not use data fabric manager. We wrote our own scripts to perform snapshot backups and we were able to clone databases in 2 minutes (regardless of size).

recommendations would be to make sure there are enough disks on the datafile aggregate/volume to support the IOPS you need. I used SSD for both datafile and redologs volumes. I also had to put SSD in the local server because that is where my redolog bottleneck was located. It turned out that writing redologs to the filer was faster than writing to the local disk - SSD fixed it.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Cohen, Andrew M. <> wrote:

> Hello List,
> We are moving to Fibre Channel connections with all of our storage on a
> Net App storage unit. One of the questions we got from our system admins
> was if we could limit the number of mounts that they provide us for out
> datafiles. With the newer disk technology that we all use, is it still
> important to segregate mounts for redo, CFs, datafiles, Archive logs, etc?
> I know Oracle stands firm that best practices are to segregate these files
> into separate mounts. I’m wondering what others do and if there is a
> compelling reason to continue this practice?
> Thanks,
> Andy

Michael Cunningham

Received on Fri Feb 13 2015 - 20:57:42 CET

Original text of this message