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: RAID5 and Oracle 7.3.4

Re: RAID5 and Oracle 7.3.4

From: Jerry Gitomer <jgitomer_at_hbsrx.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 12:53:41 -0400
Message-ID: <7ic00g$rfu$1@autumn.news.rcn.net>


Hi Andy,

    If you have enough RAM and your database blocks tend to stay in RAM and not get flushed out your disk configuration MAY not effect your system performance.

    However, if I were you I would try to get an additional drive or two, install them outside of your RAID 5 configuration and use them for redo logs and archives. Two drives configured as a mirrored pair are preferable to a single drive.

    You should lay out your tablespaces and data files as though you had separate physical mount points and Unix file systems. It won't make any difference as long as you are using RAID 5 but it will make it much easier to move to Mirrored drives if/when you need a performance boost.

    Why not tune for parallel query? It certainly won't hurt your performance and in some cases it may help.

    Yes your database will suffer degraded performance due to the exclusive use of RAID 5. Only you and your users can judge whether the degraded levels are unsatisfactory.

    There is at least one good paper on RAID 5 that I found on the WEB one day, but I can't find it at the moment.

regards

Jerry Gitomer


Andy Bennett wrote in message <37476D69.206A0E79_at_midwest.net>...
>I'm a relative newbie to the DBA world of Oracle and have been handed an
>Oracle 7.3.4 system to manage. The database server is a Sun 5500
>Enterprise Server running Solaris 2.6. It has 4, 400 Mhz CPUs, a 100
>Mhz bus, and an ES1000 controller running RAID5 over 4, 18 Gb discs.
>I've been assured that our server does not lack speed or raw performance
>thanks to the 4 SMP processors and bus architecture (no argument here).
>
>With all this being said, I am concerned about how to best utilize this
>system while minimizing I/O contention during write intensive operations
>and/or other performance degradation. I've read several articles
>recommending the use of separate physical devices for each specific type
>of tablespace: SYSTEM, DATA1, DATA2, RBS, INDEX, TEMP, etc. This
>doesn't appear to be an option for the system at hand.
>
>I would like to layout the tablespaces to best use the physical devices
>available and plan on organizing the needed tablespaces on appropriate
>logical volumes. Are there any other considerations I should factor in
>regarding location?
>
>How does the SMP factor into this? Should we be considering tuning with
>parallel query statement in our SQL?
>
>Is this database destined to suffer degraded performance for the sake of
>the recoverability offered by the operating system and RAID5?
>
>Is there a good, recent reference for these concerns?
>
>I've got a million more questions, but will resist the urge for now.
>
>Thanks for any info you can provide,
>
>Andy
Received on Mon May 24 1999 - 11:53:41 CDT

Original text of this message

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