Re: Please recommend a disk configuration for the server

If having three disks per controller is possible, this solution will protect you from disk faliure and faliure of losing a controller, while keeping a high performance (on an I/O standpoint). If you have three disks (A,B,C) on controller One...then the SYSTEM and TEMP Tablespace should reside on DiskA. RBS and APPL1_INDEX tablespace should reside on DiskB. APPL1_DATA and TOOLS Tablespace should reside on DiskC. The other three disks on Controller2 should be mirrors of A,B and C. Like I said, If disk A,B or C crashes, you will still have the mirrored Disks available. If Controller1 goes down, you still have acces to your data via Controller2. RAID is not an option, if Performance is your beef. Plus, if the controller to the RAID box goes down, is there a redundant controller?

Good Luck,
Satar Naghshineh

PS For even better performance, get Rid of Windows NT and switch over to a UNIX box! Joking...well, kinda. In article <6v805g$5dm_at_chronicle.concentric.net>, Nnoor_at_cris.com (NNOOR) wrote:

>
>
> We have a Pentium 200 server box running NT Server 4. It has
> 512MB of RAM and it's primary function is being an Oracle server.
> We are currently running 7.3.3 but will be moving to Oracle8 in
> the very near future.
>
> The server has two FAST+WIDE SCSI adaptec controllers (bus
> mastering). Controller #1 has two 9GB disks attached to it.
> Disk 1 is logically partitioned into drive C+D, disk 2 is
> drive E. Controller #2 also has two 9GB disks attached to it
> which are mirrors of drive C,D & E. The mirroring is taken care
> of by Windows NT. There is also a CD-ROM driver attached to
> controller #1 but the CD is rarely used---only when installing.
>
> We want to change the disk setup so that we end up with two main
> drives on two different controllers. Objective is to optimize the
> Oracle's performance by separating tables and indices into
> tablespaces which exist on two different drives on two different
> controllers. We have two options: (feel free to add to the list).
>
> 1. Add two more controllers to the system (we will end up with total
> of four controllers then---we don't even know if it's possible) and
> move two main drives to controller 1&2 and the mirroring disks to
> controller 3&4. This way each disk has it's own controller and,
> hopefully, the peformance will go up.
>
> 2. Leave the current controllers and add a RAID controller to the
> server. Move existing drives to the new RAID controller. Say good
> bye to mirroring and let RAID worry about parallelism and distribution
> of files accross different drives.
>
> The question: which of the above will yield in maximum performance
> gain? The cost is an issue as well. If one solution only has about
> 10-15% advantage on the other, we will rather go with the cheaper
> one. As it stands right now, #1 (adding two more controllers) is
> about one third the cost of #2 (RAID).
>
> Thanks for your help!!!
>
> Regards,
> Nasir (nnoor_at_cris.com)
>

--
Oracle DBA/UNIX System Admin
Advanced Enterprise Solutions
(949) 756-0588
Oracle Re-Seller

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own