Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Advice on NT and ORACLE hardware

Re: Advice on NT and ORACLE hardware

From: <nasof_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:11:01 GMT
Message-ID: <74najk$8p5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>


Not that a gig of memory will hurt but it doesnt sound like your system will will benefit from caching rows in memory. Sound more like you'll be randomly hitting rows (that will mostlikely not have been accessed recently and hence not in memory.)

I'd also steer away from raid 5 if you are doing alot of writes. You dont mention you budget constraints, so i'll suggest RAID 1 (on really fast disks) and utilize Oracle8's table partitioning scheme. Also crank the block_size up to NT's max of 16K (since your average record size will be about 27K.)

-Frank

In article <74m4di$q89_at_newstoo.ericsson.se>,   "Steve Cocks" <qhsstco_at_ehpt.com> wrote:
> Nuno
>
> Thanks for the tips. May I ask a few questions ?
>
> snip
>
> >
> >Yup, shouldn't be a problem. Get big memory though, you'll need it.
> >
>
> Thinking of 1G. Is that enough ?
>
> snip
>
> >
> >Hmmmmmm, probably yes but get ready for a big hardware budget. In this size
> I'd
> >be looking at UNIX straight away, NT is just not there (no pun intended!)
> for
> >these big sizes. For a number of reasons I'm not gonna bore you with, they
> are
> >available from somewhere else.
> >I have 15 million rows on a table at work with UNIX. The hardware can do
> queries
> >on this in about 2 minutes, although not heaps of concurrent ones. And it
> is a
> >beefy UNIX box... So don't expect OLTP performance in your queries to this
> >database unless you can afford heaps of CPU and memory to cache the thing.
> >Resist the temptation to put everything on the single table, it won't work
> in
> >the long run.
> >
>
> The initial table will not contain more than 4,000,000 rows and any query
> will be against individual records in the table. We are basically fetching
> and replacing individual records. What sort of table size should we limit
> ourselves too do you think ?
>
> As far as CPU is concerned we are initially putting in 2x450 Pentium but
> will move to cluster technology and parallel servers if need be.
>
> Again thanks for the help
>
> Cheers
> Steve
>
> p.s As far as Unix is concerned we don't have any experience in this area
> and are a little loath to bring in too much outside help. The development is
> being done in Scandinavia but the system will be delivered, administered and
> run in the Middle East.
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Received on Wed Dec 09 1998 - 20:11:01 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US