Comments in-line.
--
Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
Practical Oracle 8i: Building Efficient Databases
Publishers: Addison-Wesley
See a first review at:
http://www.ixora.com.au/resources/index.htm#practical_8i
More reviews at: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/book_rev.html
Joel Garry wrote in message <92b22u$vg4$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <977519319.7059.0.nnrp-13.9e984b29_at_news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Is it the performance or the safety you worry about ?
>
>Haven't seen any real requirements defined for either, now that you
>mention it.
>
>>
>> Yes, the SAN on a fibre can be faster than a local
>> disk, especially since SANs tend to come complete
>> with battery backed buffers.
>>
>> Yes, the SAN is as safe as the local disk (it must
>> be or you wouldn't be able to run any Oracle data
>> file on it at all).
>
>Well, why couldn't you run Oracle on an unsafe disk? At least, until
>it actually does something wrong!
>
At least it would give you some peace of mind. You could
be confident that something was going to go wrong; whereas
with safe disks, you have room for doubt ;) On the other hand
I had to guess that your guts were complaining because of an
assumed new danger. Be comforted - if it is not safe to put the
redo logs on the SAN, you ought to get the rest of the database
off there too.
>To split some obvious hairs: Battery backup has nothing to do with
>transfer rate (excepting 0 rate with no power of course).
I think you may have missed BUFFER as the operative word.
In terms of speed, the SAN buffer technology can be particularly
helpful for improving throughput on redo logs.
Received on Fri Dec 29 2000 - 05:18:45 CST
